Covering prefix blackholing traffic to one of its covered prefixes....

[ssw at iu.edu (Steven Wallace)]

We have dual-homed sites that only accept routes from their peers, and default to their transit provider. A site may receive a covering prefix from a peer, but since they are not accepting the full table from their transit provider they don?t see the covered (i.e., more specific). In some cases the peer announcing the covering prefix blackholes traffic to the covered prefix.

Is this accepted behavior, or should a peer announcing a covering prefix always delver packets to its covered routes?


Does this happen often?

Thanks!

Steven Wallace
Indiana University
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3569 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20170421/72b41951/attachment.bin>