741-8551
--
- Original Message -
From: "Haesu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: MPLS ICMP Extensions
>
> It would be cool to update the NANOG Traceroute with MPLS
> extensions.
>
> -hc
>
> --
>
It would be cool to update the NANOG Traceroute with MPLS
extensions.
-hc
--
Sincerely,
Haesu C.
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
WWW: http://www.towardex.com
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell: (978) 394-2867
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:26:34AM +0200, Jesper Skriver wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 14
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:40:01PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> I wanted to get some other opinions on some new features that have
> appeared in recent code from the popular vendors. It appears there
> is a new draft, a copy of which can be found at
> http://www.watersprings.org/links/mlr/id/d
As far as I remember we have seen labels from other providers, until
they turned on the "traceroute hide". And there was no LDP coupling
between them and us so ... . That was with Cisco in both networks.
The question is if these information cause any problem for you -
despite curious customer
In a message written on Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:21:28PM -0500, Mike Bernico wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the extended MPLS info only showed
> up when the trace was started on a PE or P router. Is that right?
I did the traceroute from a router with _NO_ mpls commands turned on,
an
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the extended MPLS info only showed
up when the trace was started on a PE or P router. Is that right?
If customers or others outside the MPLS domain can see that info I'd
definitely agree with you.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:[
