Re: [OPSEC] FYI draft-ietf-opsec-blackhole-urpf-04

["Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith at qwest.com>]

Based on this conversation I withdraw my objection.
Several members expressed interest in doing a urpf feature recommendations type rfc aimed at making it easier for ISPs to implement urpf including things like feasible paths.


(coffee != sleep) & (!coffee == sleep)
 Donald.Smith at qwest.com gcia
________________________________
From: Pekka Savola [pekkas at netcore.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:55 PM
To: Smith, Donald
Cc: 'Joel Jaeggli'; 'opsec at ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] FYI draft-ietf-opsec-blackhole-urpf-04

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Smith, Donald wrote:
> Feasible path is nice and there are a couple of other urpf
> recommendations I could make to make it easier for other ISPs to
> start using strict mode urpf.
>
> Let me gather together recommendations and try to write them into a rfc.

Seconded.

You may already know this but RFC3704 talks a bit about feasible paths
on a generic level, and draft-savola-bcp84-urpf-experiences-03
describes experiences with multihomed uRPF using feasible paths. We're
using it everywhere but some manual fiddling is required in our case
(described in the draft above).

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings