[afnog] strict RPF ????

[Frank Habicht]

On 10/23/2015 3:36 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 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.

I agree.
I'd like to note that the intention was symmetric routing, but last
Sunday somewhere "something unintended happened".
And in that case I would prefer the internet to route around the
problem, and it's possible.

It's nice to have a backup route/path.
Its not nice if someone drops packets there.

Frank