DNS pulling BGP routes?

Wed Oct 13 14:05:45 UTC 2021

>
> For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral
> for contents they carry.
>
> However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using
> their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT*
> neutral at all.
>
> As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with
> neutral backbone providers for their customers but should
> reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against
> neutrality, CDN providers.
>

If I am understanding you correctly, are you arguing that anyone with a
network MUST be forced to become a transit provider for anyone else, in the
name of "neutrality"?

I'll reserve further comment until I make sure I have grasped your point.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:28 AM Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> >>> With an anycast setup using the same IP addresses in every
> >>> location, returning SERVFAIL doesn't have the same effect,
> >>> however, because failing over from anycast address 1 to
> >>> anycast address 2 is likely to be routed to the same pop
> >>> location, where the same result will occur.
> >>
> >> That's why that is a bad idea. Alternative name servers with
> >> different IP addresses should be provided at separate locations.
>
> > Sure.  But that doesn't do anything to help prevent the
> > type of outage that hit Facebook, which was the point I
> > was trying to make in my response. Facebook did use > different IP
> addresses, and it didn't matter, because the
>  > underlying health of the network is what was at issue,
>  > not the health of the nameservers.
>
> A possible solution is to force unbundling of CDN providers and
> transit providers by antitrust agencies.
>
> Then, CDN providers can't pursue efficiency only to kill
> fundamental redundancy of DNS.
>
> For network neutrality, backbone providers *MUST* be neutral
> for contents they carry.
>
> However, CDN providers having their own backbone are using
> their backbone for contents they prefer, which is *NOT*
> neutral at all.
>
> As such, access/retail providers may pay for peering with
> neutral backbone providers for their customers but should
> reject direct peering request from, actively behaving against
> neutrality, CDN providers.
>
> > I agree with you--different IP addresses should be
> > used in different geographic locations, even with
> > anycast setups.
> >
> > But people need to also recognize that's not a
> > panacea that solves everything, and that it wouldn't
> > have changed the nature of the outage last week.
>
> We should recognize the fundamental difference between
> independent, thus neutral, backbone providers and
> CDN providers with anti-neutral backbone of their own.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211013/2b613a96/attachment.html>