[161578] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Mar 20 11:19:00 2013
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <41EADDFF-7012-45DE-93AC-6B92669E76EC@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:18:38 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I don't know a single ISP that wants to throttle growth by not =
accepting additional customers, BGP speaking or not. (I do know several =
that want to throttle growth through not upgrading their links because =
they have a captive audience they are trying to ransom. But that is =
neither relevant to this discussion, not controversial - unless you are =
paid by one of those ISPs=85.)
>=20
> Comcast
> Verizon
> AT&T
> Time Warner Cable
> Cox
> CenturyLink
>=20
> to name a few.
>=20
> Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber.
Who cares? [See below.]
>> 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 allowing grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or =
anything else won't change that.
>=20
> Sure they are. If they weren't, it would be relatively straight =
forward to add the necessary options to DHCP for a minimal (accept =
default, advertise local) BGP configuration and it would be quite simple =
for CPE router manufacturers to incorporate those capabilities.
>=20
> The problem is BGP doesn't scale to that level and everyone knows it, =
so, we limit growth by not allowing it to be a possibility.
This is patently false. No network has a decision matrix that is "BGP =
doesn't scale, so let's refuse money from customers".
Every single one of the companies you listed will run BGP with =
customers. You limited this to "residential subscriber". Companies do =
not have only "residential customers". Pay more, get more. Pay $40, get =
less. Shocker.
"Not if you don't pay for it" is not a valid argument against "every =
$COMPANY has $FEATURE".
I said the barrier to entry for multihoming was lower than it has ever =
been. I didn't say it was zero.
You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the =
doubt and assume you just kinda-sortta forgot or did not consider the =
whole "money" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every =
Internet entity exists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell =
me about the N% which are non-profits, despite the fact I said =
"nearly"?)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> You are right, however, LISP won't change that.
>=20
>>> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) =
from the
>>> end user or content provider/consumer.
>>=20
>> I am unconvinced that is a good idea. At least using the definition =
of "end use" or "consumer" I frequently hear.=20
>=20
> +1
>=20
> However, a locator/id separation without map/encap is a desirable =
thing that could allow the routing system to scale better. =
Unfortunately, we failed to address this issue when designing IPv6. It =
will not get correctly solved without a revision to the header design. =
There is no will to change the packet header in the near future. We're =
having too much "fun" rolling out the current one.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
