nanog mailing list archives
Re: question concerning traceroute?
From: alex () yuriev com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
According to definition, is should take the same path, but are there any other cases that I should be aware of?According to the definition, it is going to show you the path the packets took from you to the destination, not from the destination back.Unless you did "- g",Not correct. -g specifies loose source routing on the way *there*, not back.I think the intention was to indicate that you can traceroute -g <remote-router-before-host> <your-local-ip> to get the path to and back. -g requires an argument obviously.
That, obviously, is correct. However, the remote ip in this case is your local IP, so you are still getting a path to the destination. Even more importantly, LSR relies on every router on a forward path between <your-local-ip> and <remote-router-before-host> allowing LSR, which is an invalid assumption. Thanks, Alex
Current thread:
- question concerning traceroute? Darrell Carley (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? alex (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? Nipper, Arnold (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? alex (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? Jared Mauch (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? alex (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? David Howe (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? Nipper, Arnold (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? alex (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? k claffy (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? Arnold Nipper (Oct 17)
- Re: question concerning traceroute? Sean Donelan (Oct 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: question concerning traceroute? Kris Foster (Oct 17)