[35352] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Loose Source Routing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Wed Mar 7 12:22:30 2001
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:15:41 -0500
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@bbnplanet.com>
To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net>, bwalters@inet-direct.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010307121541.R23712@jhawk-foo.bbnplanet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200103071649.f27GnEs14291@ptavv.es.net>; from oberman@es.net on Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 08:49:14AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Kevin wrote:
> > From: "Walters" <bwalters@inet-direct.com>
> > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:19:26 -0600
> > Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> >
> > Couldn't this be restricted to originate from certain
> > hosts with certain identities? (Have the peer noc
> > authenticate and then just log usage?)
>
> This is really not too useful. How you route to our NOC is not as
> important as how you route to our customers. That means LS packets
> need to have source addresses from fairly random places.
More to the point, there is no COMPELLING REASON to perform such
restriction.
People who are afraid of LSRR should feel free to turn it off at their
hosts. Operators who discover that their performance is degrading due
to too much LSRR may have legitimate issues, but I think of them as
"bridge that gap when we come to them" -type issues. (Obvious
solutions include rate-limitting.) Personally, I think this is
unlikely to happen ("famous last words").
--jhawk
