Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:26 AM, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> 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.

Any organization can easily justify a /48 if they can show two LOIs or contracts for peering or transit from 
independent ASNs.

> 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.
>
> I have trouble seeing how this can be called "good".  A "necessary evil given broken technology" perhaps, but not 
> "good".

+1

> > > 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.

What part of "without BGP" benefits the edge? Multihoming with BGP is much simpler at the edge than implementing LISP.


Owen