why not peer with LS disabling networks ?

I'm curious - is this a firm "NO" thing, or do you peer with people
that offer alternatives ? We disable LSR a/x our whole net but still
provide a traceroute server and (RSN) a looking glass. What other
reasons do you want LSR enabled for ?

1. It's certainly a helluvalot easier to make a traceroute server
  lie, than to make LSRR lie.

2. Typically one wants to test from MULTIPLE borders of a given
  network to ensure that they are doing shortest-exit properly.
  A traceroute server is useless for this, unless you have one
  attached to every router.

3. There's a significantly higher probability that a traceroute
  server might be down, than that all backbone LSRR might be

4. With LSRR, it works the same way for everybody. No need to
  keep a database of address<>traceroute server correspondances,
  no need to worry about the subtlties of parsing other people's
  traceroute output [which version of traceroute did they use?
  do they let you specify arguments, etc., etc.]