[161598] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 20 16:27:39 2013
In-Reply-To: <53CF2D6C-EB9A-4AE5-9AAC-922A6972B140@istaff.org>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:25:10 -0500
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=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
> I suspect it has nothing to do with the scaling properties of=20
> routing tables and everything to do with customer support costs.
>=20
> 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...
>=20
An interesting idea. In my case, I average about 3 calls per month to Comcas=
t. I suspect this more than consumes the $99/month I pay them for internet s=
ervice. Further, I often get service credits out of those calls that further=
reduce their income.
If they provided native dual-stack with BGP and their service didn't go down=
on a regular basis, it would result in fewer calls, at least from me.
> 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.
I don't want the residential customers themselves running BGP at all. Howeve=
r, if there were motivation on the provider side, automated BGP configuratio=
n could enable consumers to attach to multiple providers and actually reduce=
support calls significantly.
Owen
