[35312] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Loose Source Routing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Tue Mar 6 18:30:26 2001
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:41:56 -0800
From: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>
To: David McGaugh <david_mcgaugh@eli.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010306124156.B41769@routingloop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3AA5233B.E128EF5A@eli.net>; from david_mcgaugh@eli.net on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:49:47AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
It makes sense to require peers to allow LSTR through their peer's
networks.
Any badness that LSTR would allow seems to pale in comparison to A>
Peer's need to check policy compliance and operational troubleshooting,
and B> other nefarious things that can be done and not solved.
-a
Thus spake David McGaugh (david_mcgaugh@eli.net)
on or about Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:49:47AM -0800:
> What are people's feelings on loose source routing? The general
> sentiment around here is that it is a very evil thing. The reason I ask
> is that there is a certain network out there (who will remain nameless)
> who refuses to peer unless loose source routing is enabled. I can
> somewhat understand their reasoning (they can reroute traffic on OUR
> network as necessary) but the security implications far out way the
> benefits. Not only this I'm not comfortable with an outside source
> having control over routing on our network anyway.
> -Dave
> --
> +------------------------------+
> Dave McGaugh, CCNA
> Peering & IP Backbone Engineer
> Electric Lightwave, Inc.
> E-mail: dmcgaugh@eli.net
> Direct Dial: 360.816.3718
> Fax: 360.816.3522
> +------------------------------+
Content-Description: Card for David McGaugh
