upstream support for flowspec
joelja at bogus.com
Thu Sep 18 23:57:08 UTC 2014
On 9/18/14 11:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:53:52 -0400
> Daniel Corbe <corbe at corbe.net> wrote:
>> Is there anything in the air about widening the adoption base? Cisco?
> I've seen some suggesting that increased support, but even at Juniper,
> actions seem to speak larger than words. There seems to be very little
> interest for awhile now. However, I do know of some providers who use
> it, largely internal only.
afaik from some previous experience it was hard to know a-priori which
flow-spec route insertion was going to cause aberrant performance on the
juniper platforms we were using.
That's kinda ok if you use them since at least you can be aware of and
revert that if it proves to be a problem. but it's kind of handing your
customer a loaded gun.
> We also have tried a community flow-spec service, and more recently
> have been prototyping a community RTBH server with flow-spec capability
> (ping me off list if you want to hear more or see me at NANOG 62).
> A few people have recently told me they would like our community RTBH
> service via flow-spec instead of just BGP next hop, but really only one
> seemed seriously intent on configuring it day one.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NANOG