[161574] in North American Network Operators' Group
Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Mar 20 08:40:37 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAO1bj=bu5GaenmyZm8UzD85H+_2Wa_2y8BOCHkcCGOQ0_-CT+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:40:15 -0400
To: North American Operators' 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 20, 2013, at 8:07, Aled Morris <aledm@qix.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 11:44, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> The last presentations that I saw about it said that we are going
>> to be
>> fine:
>>=20
>> http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/2011-11-13-bgp2011.pdf
>> http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/iepg-201111.pdf
>>=20
> It isn't just about "imminient death of the net predicted" though - our
> reliance on the current BGP model for route adverisement is restricting th=
e
> deployment of better connectivity paradigms.
>=20
> For example I know there are enterprises that would like to multihome but=
> they find the current mechanism a barrier to this - for a start they can't=
> justify the size of PI space that would guarantee them entry to the global=
> routing table.
Then they are not well educated. Which is not surprising, and unlikely to ch=
ange of we change the underlying protocol.=20
The barrier to entry for multihoming has never been lower. Moreover, not sur=
e it is the protocol's job to lower it further.
> ISPs differentiate between "regular" and "BGP-capable" connections - is
> this desirable for the evolution of the Internet? or is it the reason tha=
t
> BGP appears to be able to cope, because ISPs are throttling the potential
> growth?
I don't know a single ISP that wants to throttle growth by not accepting add=
itional customers, BGP speaking or not. (I do know several that want to thro=
ttle growth through not upgrading their links because they have a captive au=
dience they are trying to ransom. But that is neither relevant to this discu=
ssion, not controversial - unless you are paid by one of those ISPs....)
And please don't reply with "then why can't I run BGP on my [cable|DSL|etc.]=
link?" Broadband providers are not trying to throttle growth by not allowin=
g grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or anything else won't change that=
.
> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) from th=
e
> end user or content provider/consumer.
I am unconvinced that is a good idea. At least using the definition of "end =
use" or "consumer" I frequently hear.=20
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
