nanog mailing list archives
Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ?
From: Network Operations Center <noc () nwrain net>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Hello Paul,
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote:
At 04:38 PM 11/23/97 +0000, Lyndon Levesley wrote: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 ?traceroute -g can be a surprisingly useful tool.
And what traceroute are you using ??????
None of the BSD versions have it . JimL
Current thread:
- Re: Land and Cisco question, (continued)
- 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)