nanog mailing list archives
Re: loose source route
From: "Matt Mathis" <mathis () zippy psc edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:22:14 -0500
We depend on LSRR for nearly all of our diagnosis. My attitude is pretty simple. LSRR is a mandatory part of IP. If no LSRR, it's not IP, and the problem report goes immediately to the owner of the router in question. That said, I understand the practicalities of excluding all LSRR at the site level. We strongly encourage sites to have at least one address (with IP forwarding enabled) on the outside of their firewall. And if a site is having a problem and insists on not running IP, I have no tools capable of diagnosing their external connectivity. --MM--
Current thread:
- loose source route C. Philip Wood (Mar 24)
- Re: loose source route Paul Ferguson (Mar 24)
- Re: loose source route roy alcala (Mar 24)
- Re: loose source route Matt Mathis (Mar 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: loose source route Vadim Antonov (Mar 27)
- Re: loose source route Paul Traina (Mar 27)
- Re: loose source route bmanning (Mar 27)
- Re: loose source route Chris Dorsey (510)422-4474 (Mar 30)
- Re: loose source route Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 30)
- Re: loose source route Chris Dorsey (510)422-4474 (Mar 30)
- Re: loose source route Curtis Villamizar (Mar 30)
- Re: loose source route Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 30)
- Re: loose source route Paul Ferguson (Mar 24)