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

Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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 throttle growth through not upgrading their links because they have a captive audience they are trying to ransom. But that is neither relevant to this discussion, not controversial - unless you are paid by one of those ISPs?.)
> Comcast
> Verizon
> AT&T
> Time Warner Cable
> Cox
> CenturyLink
> to name a few.
> Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber.

Who cares? [See below.]

>> And please don't reply with "then why can't I run BGP on my [cable|DSL|etc.] link?" Broadband providers are not trying to throttle growth by not allowing grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or anything else won't change that.
> Sure they are. If they weren't, it would be relatively straight forward to add the necessary options to DHCP for a minimal (accept default, advertise local) BGP configuration and it would be quite simple for CPE router manufacturers to incorporate those capabilities.
> 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.

This is patently false. No network has a decision matrix that is "BGP doesn't scale, so let's refuse money from customers".

Every single one of the companies you listed will run BGP with customers. You limited this to "residential subscriber". Companies do not have only "residential customers". Pay more, get more. Pay $40, get less. Shocker.

"Not if you don't pay for it" is not a valid argument against "every $COMPANY has $FEATURE".

I said the barrier to entry for multihoming was lower than it has ever been. I didn't say it was zero.

You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just kinda-sortta forgot or did not consider the whole "money" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every Internet entity exists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell me about the N% which are non-profits, despite the fact I said "nearly"?)


> You are right, however, LISP won't change that.
>>> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) from the
>>> end user or content provider/consumer.
>> I am unconvinced that is a good idea. At least using the definition of "end  use" or "consumer" I frequently hear. 
> +1
> However, a locator/id separation without map/encap is a desirable thing that could allow the routing system to scale better. Unfortunately, we failed to address this issue when designing IPv6. It will not get correctly solved without a revision to the header design. There is no will to change the packet header in the near future. We're having too much "fun" rolling out the current one.
> Owen