nanog mailing list archives

Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ?

From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:13:06 -0500

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.

- paul

Current thread:

Re: Land and Cisco question, (continued)
- 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 Dean Anderson (Nov 24)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Greg A. Woods (Nov 24)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
  - Re: Land and Cisco question Joe Shaw (Nov 24)
- Re: Land and Cisco question Sean Donelan (Nov 24)