North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ?
> 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 ? 1. It's certainly a helluvalot easier to make a traceroute server lie, than to make LSRR lie. 2. Typically one wants to test from MULTIPLE borders of a given network to ensure that they are doing shortest-exit properly. A traceroute server is useless for this, unless you have one attached to every router. 3. There's a significantly higher probability that a traceroute server might be down, than that all backbone LSRR might be down. 4. With LSRR, it works the same way for everybody. No need to keep a database of address<>traceroute server correspondances, no need to worry about the subtlties of parsing other people's traceroute output [which version of traceroute did they use? do they let you specify arguments, etc., etc.] Clear? --jhawk