> On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
> wrote:
>> Let me mention that I think the WG should also consider potential use of
>> RPKI as a complementary mechanism to improve uRPF. Namely, if there is an
>> ROA for the prefix-origin pair, it should be allowed (even if the
>> (enh
Yes, I agree.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:20 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote:
> Amir,
>
> >I support the adoption of "draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements" as an
> >OPSEC Working Group document.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >
> >Let me mention that I think the WG should al
Amir,
>I support the adoption of "draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements" as an
>OPSEC Working Group document.
Thank you.
>
>Let me mention that I think the WG should also consider potential use of
>RPKI as a complementary mechanism to improve uRPF. Namely, if there is an
>ROA for the prefix-origi
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:21:48AM +1200, Barry Greene wrote:
> Then you have this statement "It is well known that this method has
> limitations when networks are multi-homed and there is asymmetric routing of
> packets.??? That is false. BCP84 is wrong. uRPF has been deployed with
> multi