[161597] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 20 16:24:12 2013
In-Reply-To: <59415DCC-2D4E-4DD9-87C9-0B56BF24FCCF@ianai.net>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:20:23 -0500
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote=
:
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> 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
> Who cares? [See below.]
>=20
Not one of them will run BGP with a commercial subscriber using a cost-effec=
tive edge technology.
>=20
>>> And please don't reply with "then why can't I run BGP on my [cable|DSL|e=
tc.] link?" Broadband providers are not trying to throttle growth by not all=
owing grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or anything else won't change t=
hat.
>>=20
>> Sure they are. If they weren't, it would be relatively straight forward t=
o add the necessary options to DHCP for a minimal (accept default, advertise=
local) BGP configuration and it would be quite simple for CPE router manufa=
cturers 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.
>=20
> This is patently false. No network has a decision matrix that is "BGP does=
n't scale, so let's refuse money from customers".
>=20
In so many words, no, but it is the net effect when you distill down the oth=
er contents of the matrix.
> Every single one of the companies you listed will run BGP with customers. Y=
ou limited this to "residential subscriber". Companies do not have only "res=
idential customers". Pay more, get more. Pay $40, get less. Shocker.
I pay $99/month to Comcast and they won't even give me a static address. Tha=
t's a "business class" service from them.
OTOH, I have two ISPs that do BGP with me for free.
> "Not if you don't pay for it" is not a valid argument against "every $COMP=
ANY has $FEATURE".
>=20
> I said the barrier to entry for multihoming was lower than it has ever bee=
n. I didn't say it was zero.
The barrier is lower, but it's still higher than it should be.
> You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the do=
ubt and assume you just kinda-sortta forgot or did not consider the whole "m=
oney" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every Internet entity e=
xists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell me about the N% which=
are non-profits, despite the fact I said "nearly"?)
I'm paying way more per month to the providers that refuse to do BGP with/fo=
r me than I am paying to the providers that ARE doing BGP with/for me. Clear=
ly money is not the issue.
Owen
