Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

Wed Mar 20 12:40:15 UTC 2013

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. 

On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:07, Aled Morris <aledm at qix.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 11:44, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>        The last presentations that I saw about it said that we are going
>> to be
>> fine:
>> 
>> http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/2011-11-13-bgp2011.pdf
>> http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/iepg-201111.pdf
>> 
> It isn't just about "imminient death of the net predicted" though - our
> reliance on the current BGP model for route adverisement is restricting the
> deployment of better connectivity paradigms.
> 
> 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.

Then they are not well educated. Which is not surprising, and unlikely to change of we change the underlying protocol. 

The barrier to entry for multihoming has never been lower. Moreover, not sure it is the protocol's job to lower it further.

> ISPs differentiate between "regular" and "BGP-capable" connections - is
> this desirable for the evolution of the Internet?  or is it the reason that
> BGP appears to be able to cope, because ISPs are throttling the potential
> growth?

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....)

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.

> 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. 

-- 
TTFN,
patrick