[3996] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the Internic Blocked
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Doran)
Tue Sep 3 17:09:12 1996
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: Vadim Antonov <avg@quake.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Doran <smd@chops.icp.net>
Date: 03 Sep 1996 16:32:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: Curtis Villamizar's message of Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:18:48 -0400
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> writes (to Vadim Antonov):
> Oh come on. Like they're not going to get caught stuffing an entire
> T1 with LSRR packets. Face it. You're grabbing at
> straws.
Can I grab at one too?
I'd love to see LSRR (and SSRR) dead because it
slows down single-path forwarding considerably,
and complicates fast-path/slow-path systems in
gross ways for what I believe is minimal added utility.
Some folks may have run across more uses for one
or the other that involve more than 'traceroute -g'
or 'telnet @foo:bar', both of some utility, I suppose,
but one is easily replaced with application-level
proxying, and the other is just weird. Or vice-versa.
Of course, I don't have a religious feeling about this,
since I try to persuade my vendor(s) to supply routers
which can handle tiny Christmas-tree packets (those that
are fully decorated with options) at line speed without
loss. Then again, I work for a company with deep pockets
that can afford what it takes to buy per-packet time
budgets that can satisfy that kind of design criterion...
(Others may want to consider encouraging people to keep
fast Internetworking cheap by using things like MTU
discovery and getting rid of things like IP options)
Sean.
