[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[c-nsp] DNS amplification

Mark Andrews wrote:

>>> 	Yes, BCP38 is the solution.
>> It is not a solution at all, because it, instead, will promote
>> multihomed sites bloats the global routing table.
> How does enforcing that source address entering your net from
> customers sites match thoses that have been allocated to them
> bloat the routing table?

First of all, multihomed sites with its own global routing
table entries bloats the global routing table, which is the
major cause of global routing table bloat and is not acceptable.

Then, the only solution is to let the multihomed sites have
multiple prefixes, each of which is aggregated by each

But, then, all the end systems are required to choose the proper
source addresses corresponding to destination addresses, which
requires IGPs carry such information.

See draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-05 for details.

> Now if you only accept address you have allocated to them by you
> then that could bloat the routing table but BCP 38 does NOT say to
> do that.  Simlarly URP checking is not BCP 38.

That BCP 38 is narrowly scoped is not my problem.

> With SIDR each multi-homed customer could provide CERTs which proves
> they have been allocated a address range which could be feed into
> the acl generators as exceptions to the default rules.  This is in
> theory automatible.

The problem is not in individual ISPs but in the global routing
table size.

> How does that solve the problem?

In the end to end fashion.

See draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-05 for details.

						Masataka Ohta