nanog mailing list archives
Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ?
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 97 09:44 PST
<insert replay of we don't peer with LSR inhibitors discussion>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 ?
We use LSR for debugging. We have many peers. We do not intend to maintain a procedure of the week manual for each peer. Hell to maintain and does not scale. randy
Current thread:
- Re: Land and Cisco question, (continued)
- Re: Land and Cisco question John Bashinski (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Hank Nussbacher (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Randy Bush (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Alex Bligh (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Paul Ferguson (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Alan Barrett (Nov 23)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Joe Shaw (Nov 23)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Randy Bush (Nov 23)
- why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Lyndon Levesley (Nov 23)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? John Hawkinson (Nov 23)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Randy Bush (Nov 23)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Paul Ferguson (Nov 24)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Network Operations Center (Nov 24)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? John Hawkinson (Nov 24)
- Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Neil J. McRae (Nov 25)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Randy Bush (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Dean Anderson (Nov 24)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Greg A. Woods (Nov 24)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Joe Shaw (Nov 24)