why not peer with LS disabling networks ?

John Hawkinson 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 mailing list