Job, My responses marked [Sriram] below:
[Job]: In section 3, the border router which received Q1, might not be the same border router which received Q2 and Q3, these two border routers might not have the same view on the routing table: each could have a partial routing table (and reach the other through a default route). [Job] In the above configuration, if Enhanced Feasible-Path uRPF would be enabled on the interface between these two border routers, it would result in blackholing, correct? [Sriram]: We were not considering uRPF on data links internal to an AS. The uRPF is assumed applied on the external facing interfaces (customer, peer etc.). Also, we are considering scenarios where the border routers within an AS exchange routes and have full tables. In scenarios like what you point out where there is default routing, even loose uRPF on the internal or external facing interfaces is not possible, right? Sriram _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
