On (2013-12-11 16:10 +0000), R.P. Aditya wrote: > Some problems never go away, just reappear periodically -- strict uRPF > (and even loose uRPF) on transit provider peering interfaces are going > to have unintended consequences as long as their is routing asymmetry
I can't imagine why uRPF/loose would be problematic. If you're originating traffic from prefix which you're not advertising to DFZ and you still expect it to work, your expectation are at fault, not uRPF/loose. However uRPF/strict feasible won't work, while occasionally some people seem to think it does. -- ++ytti
