Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. 

On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:45, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:

> On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
> > There's nothing inherent in BGP that would not work with an
> > unconstrained growth of the routing table, right? You just need enough
> > bandwidth and interrupts to deal with updates.
>
> With enough thrust, pigs fly quite well.  Landing can get messy though...

The demise of BGP from unrestrained table growth has been predicted for decades. Part of this is because my million 
dollar router has a slower central proc and less RAM than my $2k laptop. So yeah, pigs can fly with sufficient thrust, 
but we are currently using hamsters on a wheel level thrust. There is a middle ground.

Before we claim BGP is dead again, let's take a moment and ensure we didn't cripple it first. The protocol, as Chris 
said, has no inherent problems scaling for the a while at least. It may not be "optimal", but there is something to be 
said for a protocol with a 100% installed base that works, and works well. 

-- 
TTFN,
patrick