Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
> The demise of BGP from unrestrained table growth has been predicted for decades.

The exhaustion of IPv4 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.

Sure.  However, oddly, vendors haven't been rushing to do this.  I suspect (but do not know for sure) this might be 
because the market for non-hamster driven routers is pretty small and the requirements that market has can be quite 
hard to meet ("you want packets switched how fast? with how many millions of knobs?").  Maybe the market will change or 
a new entrant will come along and upset the applecart (and not be acquired to be killed).

> 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.

DId someone claim BGP was dead?

> 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. 

LISP doesn't replace BGP. It merely adds a layer of indirection so you don't have to propagate identity information 
along with routing topology, allowing much greater aggregation.

Regards,
-drc