not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...

Ran Atkinson rja at
Thu Sep 11 22:45:22 UTC 1997

On Sep 11 15:23, Randy Bush wrote:
} Subject: Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...

% I also think it may be time we refuse to peer with anyone
% who inhibits LSR, as it seems that validation is now mandatory.
% I think we should be sending out a "LSR is mandatory" notice
% to our peers.  Comments?

LSR is actually a significant security issue.  So, while I do
understand and am sympathetic to the operational debugging
issues that LSR addresses, I think that requiring a peer to
enable LSR more than 2 hops inside their network from the
outside world is unreasonable.

In a world where SSH were available in cisco routers and/or
IPsec were more widely deployed, I might have different views.
However, we are where we are.


rja at

More information about the NANOG mailing list