On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 01:19:39 am Gert Doering wrote: > Part of our next bid for upstream connectivity will be > "working traceroute". > > We're getting tired of people blaiming our upstream link > for transatlantic delays (hidden by traceroute hiding in > upstream network), packet loss in upstream network, > problems with the next-hop ISP border routers, etc. > > Yes, we have our share of "customer not able to read > traceroute", but the pain of "being a customer, and not > being able to *do* traceroute" is much worse.
I whole-heartedly agree. Hiding the topology because MPLS makes your network "vanish" and appear like one big tunnel is forgetting the fundamental principles of routing. I like MPLS, but for what it can offer, and not what it takes away. Common sense. Diminishing troubleshooting capabilities is one of the reasons I would - even though temporarily - side with the MPLS haters. Like IPv6, I think it would be reasonable to add "must support hop-by-hop traceroute" for upstream bids, since everyone loves to run MPLS these days, even when it's probably unnecessary. Of course, I don't care what private networks do with their backbones. This post is limited to public service provider networks. For public service provider networks bent on hiding their topology, as a friend would say, "I encourage you to do so :-)". Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
