[161531] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Mar 19 14:12:09 2013
In-Reply-To: <4E4286DD-92D1-4A50-BC31-4BE166D1BEB2@virtualized.org>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:11:54 -0400
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.=20
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:45, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>=
wrote:
>> There's nothing inherent in BGP that would not work with an
>> unconstrained growth of the routing table, right? You just need enough
>> bandwidth and interrupts to deal with updates.
>=20
> With enough thrust, pigs fly quite well. Landing can get messy though...
The demise of BGP from unrestrained table growth has been predicted for deca=
des. Part of this is because my million dollar router has a slower central p=
roc and less RAM than my $2k laptop. So yeah, pigs can fly with sufficient t=
hrust, but we are currently using hamsters on a wheel level thrust. There is=
a middle ground.
Before we claim BGP is dead again, let's take a moment and ensure we didn't c=
ripple it first. The protocol, as Chris said, has no inherent problems scali=
ng for the a while at least. It may not be "optimal", but there is something=
to be said for a protocol with a 100% installed base that works, and works w=
ell.=20
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
