Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification

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

On 3/20/13 12:26 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> The implication of this statement is that if you cannot afford the RIR fees, the routers, the technical expertise to 
> run those routers, the additional opex associated with "BGP-capable" Internet connectivity, etc., the 
> services/content you provide don't deserve resiliency/redundancy/etc.
        
        You deserve it, but can you afford it? (at least with the technology
that we have today).

> I have trouble seeing how this can be called "good".  A "necessary evil given broken technology" perhaps, but not 
> "good".
        May be not my best choice of words. What I meant was that if you cannot
justify PI, probably you do not have the means to run multihome today.
        
        It is not really good, in fact it sucks but this is the reality.

        
> > > 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.
>
> Being able to effectively multi-home without BGP, removing the need to ever renumber, etc., all sound like benefits 
> to the edge to me.
>
> > The economic equation is all wrong. 

        Is LISP able to provide all those benefits?

> People keep saying this.
>
> For core providers, the equation doesn't change.  Well, OK, they may lose the additional fees they get for 
> "BGP-capable" connections and they won't have the 'benefit' of the cost of renumbering to reduce customer thrash, 
> however they continue to get paid for providing connectivity services. They might even save some money in the long 
> run as they won't need to replace their hamsters with guinea pigs quite as frequently.
>
> For edges, the addition of a network element gives them freedom and resiliency at the cost of additional complexity 
> and a bit of additional latency/reduced bandwidth.  However, it is the edges that would pay the cost to get the 
> benefit. I have trouble seeing how this economic equation is wrong.
>
> > There is not economic incentive for the edge to deploy LISP. We are facing the same problem
> > that we have with IPv6.
>
> Not really. 

Not in the details, but in the macro it is. A technology that has to be
lead by somebody that may not have the incentive to do it.

> For example, you (or somebody) have to edit/recompile code to use IPv6.
> You do not have to recompile code to use LISP.

        But as edge site I have to have a capable router, have engineers to
deploy LISP (or pay for it), etc. Without a clear benefit I do not
seeing any one doing it.

        But I've already said it in my previous emal:

"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."

        
> Regards,
> -drc

Regards,
as