Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification

[Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>]

On 20/03/2013 09:07, Aled Morris wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 11:44, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com
> <mailto:arturo.servin () 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.

        Agree with that. But as today I do not think LISP would be the solution.

> 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.

        Which is good. If they cannot justify PI space may be they should not
get into the global routing table. It is a problem for them, yes. Do we
have a solution? Not yet.

> 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?

        It is an operational practice. Maintaining BGP sessions have a cost.
Also, at least in the cases that I know those connections also have
different SLAs which is the real cost, not just the BGP.

> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) from
> the end user or content provider/consumer.

        Yes, but as mentioned before the cost is in the edge, the benefit in
the core. The economic equation is all wrong. There is not economic
incentive for the edge to deploy LISP. We are facing the same problem
that we have with IPv6.

        Now, if with LISP as an edge site I can have multihome, high
availability, not to renumber my network, or any other combination of
benefits and it does cost less than PI+BGP or PA+<adyourflavorofNAThere>
then it may work.

> Aled

Regards,
as