> On 19 Oct 2019, at 04:42, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 20:15, Lukas Tribus <li...@ltri.eu> wrote: > >> This has the potential to brake things, because it requires symmetry >> and perfect IRR accuracy. Just because the prefix would be rejected by >> BGP does not mean there is not a legitimate announcement for it in the >> DFZ (which is the exact difference between uRPF loose mode and the ACL >> approach). > > It's interesting to also think, when is good time to break things. > > CustomerA buys transit from ProviderB and ProviderA > > CustomerA gets new prefix, but does not appropriately register it. > > ProviderB doesn't filter anything, so it works. ProviderA does filter > and does not accept this new prefix. Neither Provider has ACL. > > > Some time passes, and ProviderB connection goes down, the new prefix, > which is now old prefix experiences total outage. CustomerA is not > happy. > > > Would it have been better, if ProviderA would have ACLd the traffic > from CustomerA? Forcing the problem to be evident when the prefix is > young and not in production. Or was it better that it broke later on?
Having been through this exact situation recently (made worse by the fact that it was caused by provider b’s upstreams not having updated their filters and not provider b itself), I would suggest its 100 times better for it to happen right at the start rather than randomly down the track > > -- > ++ytti
