On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:30 AM Saku Ytti <
saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 17:22, Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> wrote:
> We deploy urpf strict on all customer end-host and broadband circuits. In this scenario urpf = ingress acl I don't have to think about.
But you have to think about what prefixes a customer has. If BGP you
need to generate prefix-list, if static you need to generate a static
route. As you already have to know and manage this information, what
is the incremental cost to also emit an ACL?
--
++ytti
"You might argue that ingress packet acl would be operationally simpler on customer and upstream, as you could cover all scenarios."
Although for a static customer urpf is hard to beat...
--
Tim:>