Source routing is dangerous. Hoever, i see no harm to allow source routing for a particular type of packets (for example, for ICMP echo requests). Cisco? Are you there? --vadim

From list-admin@merit.edu Fri Mar 24 16:40:49 1995 Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by titan.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.8) with ESMTP id LAA16452 for <avg@titan.sprintlink.net>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:40:48 -0500 Received: from sneezy.lanl.gov (sneezy.lanl.gov [128.165.114.1]) by merit.edu (8.6.10/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA12539 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:07:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.lanl.gov (localhost.lanl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by sneezy.lanl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA25814 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:07:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199503241607.JAA25814@sneezy.lanl.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: sneezy.lanl.gov: Host localhost.lanl.gov didn't use HELO protocol To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: loose source route Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:07:03 -0700 From: "C. Philip Wood" <cpw@lanl.gov> Status: R

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? Thanks, Phil