[afnog] strict RPF ????

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Oct/15 14:07, Frank Habicht wrote:

>
> So we at 37084 were sending packets out towards Europe.
> AS5713 received the packets from there, on a link that they did not use
> for the return for our source. Because they had a better one via above
> mentioned ASes.

On a side (but related) note, while I don't mind asymmetric forwarding,
asymmetric (or more contextually, inconsistent) routing is a real PITA.

Asymmetric/inconsistent routing combined with strict-mode uRPF is mega
bad for business. See origins of this thread.

Asymmetric/inconsistent routing with loose-mode or no uRPF is
acceptable, albeit not ideal.

Mark.