[161539] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue Mar 19 14:38:11 2013
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <7C24B73C-13FA-4DF4-99AF-C78C41C5820A@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:33:33 -0700
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
> The demise of BGP from unrestrained table growth has been predicted =
for decades.
The exhaustion of IPv4 has been predicted for decades.
> Part of this is because my million dollar router has a slower central =
proc and less RAM than my $2k laptop. So yeah, pigs can fly with =
sufficient thrust, but we are currently using hamsters on a wheel level =
thrust. There is a middle ground.
Sure. However, oddly, vendors haven't been rushing to do this. I =
suspect (but do not know for sure) this might be because the market for =
non-hamster driven routers is pretty small and the requirements that =
market has can be quite hard to meet ("you want packets switched how =
fast? with how many millions of knobs?"). Maybe the market will change =
or a new entrant will come along and upset the applecart (and not be =
acquired to be killed).
> Before we claim BGP is dead again, let's take a moment and ensure we =
didn't cripple it first. The protocol, as Chris said, has no inherent =
problems scaling for the a while at least.
DId someone claim BGP was dead?
> It may not be "optimal", but there is something to be said for a =
protocol with a 100% installed base that works, and works well.=20
LISP doesn't replace BGP. It merely adds a layer of indirection so you =
don't have to propagate identity information along with routing =
topology, allowing much greater aggregation.
Regards,
-drc
