> > > |> uRPF is one example of an implementation of this type of sanity > |> checking. > |> You can also do it via ACLs. The concept is the same either way. > | > |Okay and what was your point? > > > Simply this: if return packets leaving a LISP site, headed > for a non-LISP site, use a EID as the source address, then it > is highly likely that the packets will be dropped due to the > source address filtering.
It would pass a lose-mode check since the route is in the table, which is the current best practice for multi-homed networks. > > It would seem like you would want to encapsulate the outbound > packet at least as far as the PTR to protect against this. > > > |We can't be all things to all people. But there is a benefit to > |transition to LISP so the providers can reduce their routing > tables at > |the same time as maintaining non-LISP site to LISP site connectivity. > > > So you admit then that your argument about the benefits of > hosting a PTR don't hold water? Sorry, I don't admit this at all. -Darrel -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
