Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be impossible to implement.
On 1/30/2016 2:33 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
vote with your wallet?
If this doesn't change, then that's the plan at the conclusion of the contract. On 1/30/2016 4:29 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
Seriously, it’s a good question. Most IP transit providers offering BGP services do offer RTBH.
Our other peer right now is GTT. The merged AS4436/3257's BGP is freakin amazing, I love it.
You offer this service to your customers, don’t you? ;-) Seriously, it’s a good question. Most IP transit providers offering BGP services do offer RTBH.
On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:51 PM, George Skorup <george@cbcast.com> wrote:
Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be impossible to implement.
On 1/30/16 2:29 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman wrote:
You offer this service to your customers, don’t you? ;-)
source based RTBH requires urpf, which while generally available may have practical limitations on implementation.
Seriously, it’s a good question. Most IP transit providers offering BGP services do offer RTBH.
On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:51 PM, George Skorup <george@cbcast.com> wrote:
Why doesn't Windstream have RTBH for their BGP customers? It cannot be impossible to implement.
On 1 February 2016 at 08:17, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote: Hey,
source based RTBH requires urpf, which while generally available may have practical limitations on implementation.
I'd say uRPF/loose is one way to do it on some platforms. In JunOS for longest time it was not possible, and in default config it still is not, as source route pointing to null does not fail uRPF/loose check. However JunOS has had ~always SCU (I compare it to QPPB in CSCO) which can be used to implement source based RTBH, without use of uRPF. It likely out-performs uRPF/loose massively, as you don't have to do two LPM lookups. -- ++ytti
participants (5)
-
George Skorup -
Job Snijders -
joel jaeggli -
Matthew D. Hardeman -
Saku Ytti