why not peer with LS disabling networks ?
jhawk at bbnplanet.com
Sun Nov 23 17:23:09 UTC 1997
> I'm curious - is this a firm "NO" thing, or do you peer with people
> that offer alternatives ? We disable LSR a/x our whole net but still
> provide a traceroute server and (RSN) a looking glass. What other
> reasons do you want LSR enabled for ?
1. It's certainly a helluvalot easier to make a traceroute server
lie, than to make LSRR lie.
2. Typically one wants to test from MULTIPLE borders of a given
network to ensure that they are doing shortest-exit properly.
A traceroute server is useless for this, unless you have one
attached to every router.
3. There's a significantly higher probability that a traceroute
server might be down, than that all backbone LSRR might be
4. With LSRR, it works the same way for everybody. No need to
keep a database of address<>traceroute server correspondances,
no need to worry about the subtlties of parsing other people's
traceroute output [which version of traceroute did they use?
do they let you specify arguments, etc., etc.]
More information about the NANOG