Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

Sat Mar 23 19:53:10 UTC 2013

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:16:57 -0500, Owen DeLong said:
>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>> > Based on the average clue of your average residential subscriber (anyone
>> > here need not apply) I'd say that's a good thing.
>
>> If BGP were plug-and-play automated with settings specified by the provider,
>> what would the user's clue level have to do with it?
>
> The hypothetical existence of such a box doesn't change the fact that
> providers have to make business decisions based on actual boxes and users.

Providers who don't wish to be leap-frogged have to make business
decisions about unserved and underserved demand for which they don't
already have an effective product.

> Yes, if a plug-n-play idiot-proof BGP box existed, then the profit calculus
> would be different.  On the other hand, if there existed a reliable
> cost-effective means for faster-than-light signaling, if would drastically
> change intercontinental peering patterns.

That's not a particularly compelling counterpoint. We have a mechanism
for multihoming: BGP. We have a mechanism for flying to the moon:
rocket ships. At a strictly technical level, either could be made
suitable for use by John Q. Public. In both cases the cost
attributable to John Q's desired activity, when using known
techniques, greatly exceeds his budget.

That having been said, I'd be very interested in your take on how FTL
would change intercontinental peering patterns. How would dropping all
links to a 0 ms latency change the ways in which we choose to
interconnect and why?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004