North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: loose source route
> > On occasion, I use traceroute with the option that allows a > different viewpoint (as in the IP loose source route option). > Today, I tried to: > > traceroute -g 134.164.8.2 192.156.135.34 > > traceroute to 192.156.135.34 (192.156.135.34), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 esnet-rt2 (192.16.1.244) 6 ms 4 ms 18 ms > 2 lanl3-e-lanl1.es.net (134.55.20.139) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms > 3 llnl-e-llnl2.es.net (134.55.12.225) 40 ms 37 ms 56 ms > 4 fix-west-cpe.SanFrancisco.mci.net (192.203.230.18) 53 ms 42 ms 52 ms > 5 border3-hssi2-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.34.9) 52 ms 49 ms 56 ms > 6 core-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.2.161) 55 ms 66 ms 55 ms > 7 core-hssi-2.LosAngeles.mci.net (204.70.1.41) 55 ms 78 ms 64 ms > 8 core-hssi-2.Houston.mci.net (204.70.1.33) 88 ms 87 ms 90 ms > 9 core-hssi-2.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.1.25) 105 ms 113 ms 110 ms > 10 border1-fddi0-0.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.2.50) 171 ms 119 ms 112 ms > 11 suranet-cpe.Atlanta.mci.net (204.70.16.6) 121 ms 120 ms 111 ms > 12 atu2-atu-cf.sura.net (192.221.42.2) 111 ms 142 ms 111 ms > 13 jck1-atu2-c1.sura.net (128.167.2.2) 142 ms jck1-atu2-c3mb.sura.net (128.167.4.2) 143 ms jck1-atu2-c1.sura.net (128.167.2.2) 226 ms > 14 wes-jck1-c1.sura.net (192.221.5.34) 176 ms !S > > I thought that it was still reasonable for service providers to > allow that option while possibly denying it on an interface to > a customers network. > > What's the ruling on that? > > With all of the hullaballou recently surrounding network security, I would expect to start seeing more and more customer-access routers disallowing loose source-routed traffic. - paul _______________________________________________________________________________ Paul Ferguson US Sprint tel: 703.689.6828 Managed Network Engineering internet: [email protected] Reston, Virginia USA http://www.sprintmrn.com
|