Partial vs Full tables
drew.weaver at thenap.com
Mon Jun 15 12:55:48 UTC 2020
Yeah, as I mentioned this was a few years ago.
From: Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:54 AM
To: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver at thenap.com>
Cc: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>; brad dreisbach <bradd at us.ntt.net>; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Partial vs Full tables
> The only time we have ever noticed any sort of operational downside of using uRPF loose was when NTTs router in NYC thought a full table was only 500,000 routes a few years back.
If NTT is 2914 this can no longer happen and it is difficult to see
2914 would ever go back to uRPF. In typical implementation today ACL is much cheaper than uRPF, so we've migrated to ACL. uRPF value proposition is mostly on CLI Jockey networks, if configuration are generated for most use-cases ACL is superior solution anyhow.
In your particular defect, it doesn't seem to matter if uRPF was or was not enabled, was it dropped by uRPF/loose failure or lookup failure seems uninteresting (We do not default route).
More information about the NANOG