nanog mailing list archives
Re: Loose Source Routing
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:15:41 -0500
Kevin wrote:
From: "Walters" <bwalters () inet-direct com> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:26 -0600 Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu Couldn't this be restricted to originate from certain hosts with certain identities? (Have the peer noc authenticate and then just log usage?)This is really not too useful. How you route to our NOC is not as important as how you route to our customers. That means LS packets need to have source addresses from fairly random places.
More to the point, there is no COMPELLING REASON to perform such restriction. People who are afraid of LSRR should feel free to turn it off at their hosts. Operators who discover that their performance is degrading due to too much LSRR may have legitimate issues, but I think of them as "bridge that gap when we come to them" -type issues. (Obvious solutions include rate-limitting.) Personally, I think this is unlikely to happen ("famous last words"). --jhawk
Current thread:
- Loose Source Routing David McGaugh (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Jared Mauch (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Alan Hannan (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Randy Bush (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing David McGaugh (Mar 06)
- RE: Loose Source Routing Walters (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Kevin Oberman (Mar 07)
- Re: Loose Source Routing John Hawkinson (Mar 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Loose Source Routing Mark Borchers (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing smd (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Vadim Antonov (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing John Hawkinson (Mar 07)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Vadim Antonov (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing smd (Mar 06)
- Re: Loose Source Routing Alan Hannan (Mar 07)