[161669] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Sun Mar 24 12:47:24 2013
In-Reply-To: <CA+TcGd-1L3HxkdtE6=E6DqjnkD2N9u+_v7wtVuJkrWTDCf5-Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:47:06 -0700
To: Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 23, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will they really demand ubiquitous, unabridged connectivity?
Let's back up. End users do not as a rule* have persistent inbound connecti=
ons. If they have DSL and a Cable Modem they can switch manually (or with a=
little effort automatically) if one goes down.
* Servers-at-home-or-small-office is the use case for Owen's magic BGP box. =
Which is true for many of us and other core geeks but not an appreciable pe=
rcent of the populace.
I believe that full BGP to end user is less practical for this use case than=
a geographically dispersed BGP external facing intermediary whose connectiv=
ity to the "end user servers" is full-mesh multi-provider-multi-physical-lin=
k VPNs.=20
It's a lot easier to manage and has less chance of a config goof blowing up b=
igger network neighbors.
Every time I look at productizing this, though, the market's too small to su=
pport it. Which probably means it's way too small for home BGP...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
