not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...
karl at Mcs.Net
Thu Sep 11 23:03:34 UTC 1997
On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 03:54:00PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 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.
> So, you're comfortable with asking for LSR at the IX and a hop behind?
> > In a world where SSH were available in cisco routers and/or
> > IPsec were more widely deployed, I might have different views.
> K5 does not give you sufficient warm fuzzies?
Get a few connections to your core hardware hijacked and you'll start
installing hardwired modems on console ports and shutting off access to
the telnet side entirely.
That's a SERIOUS pain in the arse.
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
More information about the NANOG