an effect of ignoring BCP38
pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Sep 11 08:32:57 CDT 2008
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> Loose mode URPF is [..] (IMHO) pretty much waste of time and is confusing
>> the discussion about real spoofing protection. The added protection
>> compared to ACLs that drop private and possibly bogons is not that big and
>> it causes transient losses when the routing tables are changing.
> I disagree. But I will say that if everyone would apply strict mode or ACLs
> to their end point interfaces, this would likely make most of the loose mode
FWIW, based on off-list discussion, Jo's disagreement seems to stem
from a misunderstanding of how loose uRPF works (he didn't know it
accepts any packet that has a route in the routing table).
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the NANOG