Thanks much for the replies on and off list. It does seem like strict RFP should *not* be an issue in the way I had been imagining.
Thanks guys! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Adam Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] is RPF strict mode common? > On Thu, 8 May 2008, Adam Greene wrote: > >> The obvious solution to me will be to prepend my route announcements to >> Global Crossing. However, one question: there is a good chance that some >> of my traffic will flow out through Savvis and in through Global Crossing >> (in fact, that's almost certainly happening right now). Will this kind of >> asymmetrical traffic run into issues with other ISPs that deploy RPF in >> strict mode? Are there many ISPs out there that do this? > > While it's certainly a plausible scenario, an ISP that runs strict RPF on > multihomed customer links is begging for trouble for exactly the reasons > you described. The might run loose RPF, or straight ingress/egress > filtering, which should be OK. Strict RPF is meant for singlehomed sites. > > Bottom line, you should be able to alter your edge routing policies in the > ways you described to make better utilization of your transit links > without too much fear of breaking things in interesting ways... > > jms > > > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
