Re: Failover route

On 3/16/19 11:40 AM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> This is called uRPF for "unicast RPF" as opposed to the multicast RPF 
> check this is based on.

Thank you for the correction.  :-)

> Indeed uRPF should allow that packet, as the source address is found 
> off the receiving interface (usually via a directly attached network).

*nod*

> That could be done via ACLs, but would be unusual AFAIK. The uRPF 
> functionality itself should not interfere.

I agree that this would be atypical.

As I type this, I wonder if there might be any problems related to uRPF 
/sending/ the BFD-EM packet.  I think it's going to need to be sent in 
such a way as to bypass the local routing stack.

But that's on a system that I control and I have options to overcome any 
local limitations.  }:-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die