16 Jul
2013
16 Jul
'13
8:29 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Antonio Querubin <tony(a)lavanauts.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Heikki Hannikainen wrote:
I would suggest that all of the BGP-enabled sites should have tunnel
endpoints like before, so that all the old non-BGP net-44 sites can
talk directly to the BGP sites, even when they old sites are behind
uRPF/spoofing filters and cannot transmit unencapsulated net-44
traffic.
If one of the major reasons to do BGP announcements in the first place
is to reduce traffic going via UCSD, then it makes a lot of sense to
keep the old tunnel endpoints in place, and not have all traffic from
non-BGP sites to BGP sites go via UCSD. It's good for latency and
resiliency.
- Hessu
But but... I think they absolutely must stay in
encap.txt even if a
BGP announcement is place!
Existance of a route in the encap file implies there is a tunnel established
at the other end willing to accept the encapsulated traffic. The sites doing
BGP may or may not be doing that. If the latter, then you're just sending
traffic to a black hole.