[161596] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 20 16:21:19 2013
In-Reply-To: <5149CDE3.2020507@rollernet.us>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:16:57 -0500
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
> On 3/20/13 6:25 AM, Owen DeLong 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 t=
hrottle growth through not upgrading their links because they have a captive=
audience they are trying to ransom. But that is neither relevant to this di=
scussion, not controversial - unless you are paid by one of those ISPs=E2=80=
=A6.)
>>=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.
>>=20
>=20
> Based on the average clue of your average residential subscriber (anyone
> here need not apply) I'd say that's a good thing.
>=20
> ~Seth
Why?
If BGP were plug-and-play automated with settings specified by the provider,=
what would the user's clue level have to do with it?
Owen
