[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
In message <59415DCC-2D4E-4DD9-87C9-0B56BF24FCCF at ianai.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmor
> 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=85.)
> > 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 =
And homenet at the IETF demonstrated multi-homed residential
connections with IPv6 without NAT using multiple PA addresses. If
a upsteam goes down the connections over that upstream break. New
connection use the working upstream. It's not quite the same as
using PI but it is a 99.9% solution.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org