loose source route

Mon Mar 27 18:27:48 UTC 1995

Source routing is dangerous.

Hoever, i see no harm to allow source routing for a particular
type of packets (for example, for ICMP echo requests).

Cisco? Are you there?

--vadim

>From list-admin at merit.edu Fri Mar 24 16:40:49 1995
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by titan.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.8) with ESMTP id LAA16452 for <avg at titan.sprintlink.net>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:40:48 -0500
Received: from sneezy.lanl.gov (sneezy.lanl.gov [128.165.114.1]) by merit.edu (8.6.10/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA12539 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:07:05 -0500
Received: from localhost.lanl.gov (localhost.lanl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by sneezy.lanl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA25814 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:07:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199503241607.JAA25814 at sneezy.lanl.gov>
X-Authentication-Warning: sneezy.lanl.gov: Host localhost.lanl.gov didn't use HELO protocol
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: loose source route
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:07:03 -0700
From: "C. Philip Wood" <cpw at lanl.gov>
Status: R

On occasion, I use traceroute with the option that allows a
different viewpoint (as in the IP loose source route option).
Today, I tried to:

traceroute -g 134.164.8.2 192.156.135.34

traceroute to 192.156.135.34 (192.156.135.34), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  esnet-rt2 (192.16.1.244)  6 ms  4 ms  18 ms
 2  lanl3-e-lanl1.es.net (134.55.20.139)  4 ms  4 ms  4 ms
 3  llnl-e-llnl2.es.net (134.55.12.225)  40 ms  37 ms  56 ms
 4  fix-west-cpe.SanFrancisco.mci.net (192.203.230.18)  53 ms  42 ms  52 ms
 5  border3-hssi2-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.34.9)  52 ms  49 ms  56 ms
 6  core-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.2.161)  55 ms  66 ms  55 ms
 7  core-hssi-2.LosAngeles.mci.net (204.70.1.41)  55 ms  78 ms  64 ms
 8  core-hssi-2.Houston.mci.net (204.70.1.33)  88 ms  87 ms  90 ms
 9  core-hssi-2.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.1.25)  105 ms  113 ms  110 ms
10  border1-fddi0-0.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.2.50)  171 ms  119 ms  112 ms
11  suranet-cpe.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.16.6)  121 ms  120 ms  111 ms
12  atu2-atu-cf.sura.net (192.221.42.2)  111 ms  142 ms  111 ms
13  jck1-atu2-c1.sura.net (128.167.2.2)  142 ms jck1-atu2-c3mb.sura.net (128.167.4.2)  143 ms jck1-atu2-c1.sura.net (128.167.2.2)  226 ms
14  wes-jck1-c1.sura.net (192.221.5.34)  176 ms !S

I thought that it was still reasonable for service providers to
allow that option while possibly denying it on an interface to
a customers network.

What's the ruling on that?

Thanks,

Phil