[161579] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Wed Mar 20 11:26:15 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <41EADDFF-7012-45DE-93AC-6B92669E76EC@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:25:59 -0600
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I suspect it has nothing to do with the scaling properties of=20
routing tables and everything to do with customer support costs.
The metrics associated with broadband services are quite daunting;
i.e. costs from a single technical customer support call can exceed=20
the entire expected profit over the typical customer contract period...
In such circumstances, you really don't want any quantity of residential=20=
customers running BGP, as it increases the probability of customer care
calls. It's only at a different revenue point (i.e. "small-business=20
service") that it becomes viable.
FYI,
/John
