[161580] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Wed Mar 20 11:29:02 2013
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5149AC77.8030809@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:26:53 -0700
To: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Arturo,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> 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.
>=20
> Which is good. If they cannot justify PI space may be they =
should not
> get into the global routing table.
The implication of this statement is that if you cannot afford the RIR =
fees, the routers, the technical expertise to run those routers, the =
additional opex associated with "BGP-capable" Internet connectivity, =
etc., the services/content you provide don't deserve =
resiliency/redundancy/etc.
I have trouble seeing how this can be called "good". A "necessary evil =
given broken technology" perhaps, but not "good".
>> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) =
from
>> the end user or content provider/consumer.
>=20
> Yes, but as mentioned before the cost is in the edge, the =
benefit in
> the core.
Being able to effectively multi-home without BGP, removing the need to =
ever renumber, etc., all sound like benefits to the edge to me.
> The economic equation is all wrong.=20
People keep saying this.
For core providers, the equation doesn't change. Well, OK, they may =
lose the additional fees they get for "BGP-capable" connections and they =
won't have the 'benefit' of the cost of renumbering to reduce customer =
thrash, however they continue to get paid for providing connectivity =
services. They might even save some money in the long run as they won't =
need to replace their hamsters with guinea pigs quite as frequently.
For edges, the addition of a network element gives them freedom and =
resiliency at the cost of additional complexity and a bit of additional =
latency/reduced bandwidth. However, it is the edges that would pay the =
cost to get the benefit. I have trouble seeing how this economic =
equation is wrong.
> There is not economic incentive for the edge to deploy LISP. We are =
facing the same problem
> that we have with IPv6.
Not really. For example, you (or somebody) have to edit/recompile code =
to use IPv6. You do not have to recompile code to use LISP.
Regards,
-drc
