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

[c-nsp] DNS amplification

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:26 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Arturo,
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For example I know there are enterprises that would  like to multihome
>>> but they find the current mechanism a barrier to this - for a start they
>>> can't justify the size of PI space that would guarantee them entry to
>>> the global routing table.
>>    Which is good. If they cannot justify PI space may be they should not
>> get into the global routing table.

Any organization can easily justify a /48 if they can show two LOIs or contracts for peering or transit from independent ASNs.

> The implication of this statement is that if you cannot afford the RIR fees, the routers, the technical expertise to run those routers, the additional opex associated with "BGP-capable" Internet connectivity, etc., the services/content you provide don't deserve resiliency/redundancy/etc.
> I have trouble seeing how this can be called "good".  A "necessary evil given broken technology" perhaps, but not "good".


>>> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) from
>>> the end user or content provider/consumer.
>>    Yes, but as mentioned before the cost is in the edge, the benefit in
>> the core.
> Being able to effectively multi-home without BGP, removing the need to ever renumber, etc., all sound like benefits to the edge to me.

What part of "without BGP" benefits the edge? Multihoming with BGP is much simpler at the edge than implementing LISP.