[j-nsp] Question about loose-mode RPF

[Saku Ytti]

On (2005-10-19 11:36 +0200), Rafal Szarecki (WA/EPO) wrote:
> Adam, 
> 
> There was discussion in this topic fe weeks ago on list.
> 
> Juniper tread route to discard as any other route when uRPF is executed - opposed to Cisco. Cisco tread routes to null0 as non-existing when uRPF is executed. IMHO this is bed because more exeption like this makes enineers life harder.

 I couldn't resist to post, but this closely reminds me of many PC/MAC
fights, take perfectly good feature of your competitor and make it
fault of it's, claiming your systems superiority for not supporting it.
 Juniper M/T has LOT nice features that Cisco is missing, this is not one of
them.

> Generally Juniper do much better think - Flow route specification as per 
> http://professional.juniper.net/roque/draft-marques-idr-flow-spec-02.txt
> 
> This is common draft of Juniper, Cisco, Arbor and NTT/verio
> You probably can also find this on IETF site also...
> 
> see topic "low route" with BGP example.

-- 
  ++ytti