[12278] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ran Atkinson)
Thu Sep 11 18:48:20 1997
From: rja@corp.home.net (Ran Atkinson)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:45:22 -0700
In-Reply-To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
"Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ..." (Sep 11, 15:23)
To: nanog@merit.edu
On Sep 11 15:23, Randy Bush wrote:
} Subject: Re: not rewriting next-hop, pointing default, ...
% I also think it may be time we refuse to peer with anyone
% who inhibits LSR, as it seems that validation is now mandatory.
% I think we should be sending out a "LSR is mandatory" notice
% to our peers. Comments?
LSR is actually a significant security issue. So, while I do
understand and am sympathetic to the operational debugging
issues that LSR addresses, I think that requiring a peer to
enable LSR more than 2 hops inside their network from the
outside world is unreasonable.
In a world where SSH were available in cisco routers and/or
IPsec were more widely deployed, I might have different views.
However, we are where we are.
Regards,
Ran
rja@home.net
