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

Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

You do realize that there are quite a few people (home broadband
subscribers?) who just "go do something else" when their internet goes
down, right?

There are people who don't understand the difference between "a site being
slow" and packet-loss. For many of these people, losing internet service
carries zero business impact, and relatively little life impact; they might
even realize they have better things to do than watch cat videos or scroll
through endless social media feeds.

Will they really demand ubiquitous, unabridged connectivity?


On Mar 23, 2013 12:58 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2013, at 12:12 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/23/13, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> A reliable cost-effective means for FTL signaling is a hard problem
> >> a known solution.
> >
> > Faster than light signalling is not merely a hard problem.
> > Special relativity doesn't provide that information may travel faster
> > than the maximum
> > speed C.    If you want to signal faster than light, then slow down the
> >
> >> An idiot-proof simple BGP configuration is a well known solution.
> >> it would be relatively simple if there were the will to do so.
> >
> > Logistical problems...  if it's a multihomed connection, which of the
> > two or three providers manages it,  and gets to blame the other
> > provider(s) when anything goes wrong: or are you gonna rely on the
> > customer to manage it?
> >
> The box could (pretty easily) be built with a "Primary" and "Secondary"
> The cable plugged into the primary port would go to the ISP that sets the
> configuration. The cable plugged into the other port would go to an ISP
> expected to accept the announcements of the prefix provided by the ISP
> on the primary port.
> BFD could be used to illuminate a tri-color LED on the box for each port,
> which would be green if BFD state is good and red if BFD state is bad.
> At that point, whichever one is red gets the blame. If they're both green,
> then traffic is going via the primary and the primary gets the blame.
> If you absolutely have to troubleshoot which provider is broken, then
> start by unplugging the secondary. If it doesn't start working in 5
> then clearly there's a problem with the primary regardless of what else
> is happening.
> Lather, rinse, repeat for the secondary.
> > Someone might be able to make a protocol that lets this happen, which
> > would need to detect on a per-route basis any performance/connectivity
> > issues, but I would say it's not any known implementation of BGP.
> A few additional options to DHCP could actually cover it from the primary
> perspective.
> For the secondary provider, it's a little more complicated, but could be
> mostly automated so long as the customer identifies the primary provider
> and/or provides an LOA for the authorized prefix from the primary to
> the secondary.
> The only complexity in the secondary case is properly filtering the
> of the prefix assigned by the primary.
> >> 1.   ISPs are actually motivated to prevent customer mobility, not
enable it.
> >
> >> 2.   ISPs are motivated to reduce, not increase the number of
> >>      sites occupying slots in routing tables.
> >
> >    This is not some insignificant thing.   The ISPs have to maintain
> > routing tables
> >    as well;  ultimately the ISP's customers are in bad shape, if too
many slots
> >    are consumed.
> >
> I never said it was insignificant. I said that solving the multihoming
> in this manner was trivial if there was will to do so. I also said that
the above
> were contributing factors in the lack of will to do so.
> > How about
> >   3.  Increased troubleshooting complexity when there are potential
> > issues or complaints.
> >
> I do not buy that it is harder to troubleshoot a basic BGP configuration
> than a multi-carrier NAT-based solution that goes woefully awry.
> I'm sorry, I've done the troubleshooting on both scenarios and I have
> to say that if you think NAT makes this easier, you live in a different
> world than I do.
> > The concept of a "fool proof"  BGP configuration is clearly a new sort
of myth.
> Not really.
> Customer router accepts default from primary and secondary providers.
> So long as default remains, primary is preferred. If primary default goes
> away, secondary is preferred.
> Customer box gets prefix (via DHCP-PD or static config or whatever
> either from primary or from RIR). Advertises prefix to both primary
> and secondary.
> All configuration of the BGP sessions is automated within the box
> other than static configuration of customer prefix (if static is desired).
> Primary/Secondary choice is made by plugging providers into the
> Primary or Secondary port on the box.
> > The idea that the protocol on its own, with a very basic config, does
> > not ever require
> > any additional attention,  to achieve expected results;  where
> > expected results include isolation from any faults with the path from
> > one of of the user's two, three, or four providers,  and  balancing
> > for optimal throughput and best latency/loss to every destination.
> I have installed these configurations at customer sites for several of
> my consulting clients that wanted to multihome their SMBs.
> Some of them have been running for more than 8 years without a
> single issue.
> For all of the above requirements, no. You can't do that with the most
> advanced manual BGP configurations today.
> However, if we reduce it to:
> 1.      The internet connection stays up so long as one of the two
>         providers is up.
> 2.      Traffic prefers the primary provider so long as the primary
>         is up.
> 3.      My addressing remains stable so long as I remain connected to
>         the primary provider (or if I use RIR based addressing, longer).
> Then what I have proposed actually is achievable, does work, and
> does actually meet the needs of 99+% of organizations that wish to
> multihome.
> > BGP multihoming doesn't  prevent users from having issues because:
> >
> >      o Connectivity issues that are a responsibility of one of their
> >         That they might have expected multihoming to protect them
> >          (latency, packet loss).
> Correct. However, this is true of ANY multihoming solution. The dual-
> provider NAT solution certainly does NOT improve this.
> >      o very Poor performance of one of their links;  or poor
> > performance of one of their
> >         links to their favorite destination
> See above.
> >      o Asymmetric paths;  which means that when latency or loss is poor,
> >         the customer doesn't necessarily know which provider to blame,
> >         or if both are at fault,  and  the providers can spend a lot of
> >         blaming each other.
> See above.
> > These are all solvable problems,   but at cost, and therefore not for
> > massmarket lowest cost ISP service.
> My point is that the automated simple BGP solution I propose can provide
> a better customer experience than the currently popular NAT-based
> multihoming with simpler troubleshooting and lower costs.
> > It's not as if they can have
> >    "Hello, DSL technical support...  did you try shutting off your
> > other peers and retesting'?"
> > The average end user won't have a clue -- they will need one of the
> > providers, or someone else to be managing that for them,  and
> > understand  how each provider is connected.
> Again, you're setting a much higher goal than I was.
> My goal was to do something better than what is currently being done.
> (Connect a router to two providers and use NAT to choose between them).
> > I don't see large ISPs  training up their support reps for  DSL
> > $60/month services, to handle BGP troubleshooting, and multihoming
> > management/repair.
> But they already get stuck with this in the current NAT-based solution
> is even harder to troubleshoot and creates even more problems.
> Owen