Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 3/23/13 9:13 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 07:47:12PM -0700, Kyle Creyts wrote:
> > You do realize that there are quite a few people (home broadband
> > subscribers?) who just "go do something else" when their internet goes
> > down, right?
> [...]
>
> > Will they really demand ubiquitous, unabridged connectivity?
> >
> > When?
> Probably around the time their phone, TV, books, shopping, and *life* are
> all delivered over that connectivity.  Especially if they don't have any
> meaningful local storage or processing, as everything has been delegated to
> "the cloud".
When the cable is down there's the verizon usb stick (which this point 
can be into the router and serve the whole house), when verizon is down 
there's t-mobile handset. when t-mobile is down there's a workphone with 
at&t.

When the cable/verizon/t-mobile/at&t are all down for any signifcant 
length of time, I expect to be digging my neighbors our of the sorts of 
natural disasters that befall California and listening to the radio and 
maybe 2-meter.
> In practice, however, I suspect that we as providers will just get a whole
> lot better at providing connectivity, rather than have everyone work out how
> to do fully-diverse BGP from their homes.
I'm going to be somewhat contrarian, connectivity/availability with 
cloud services is important, where you access them from not so much. I 
doubt very much that reliance on the cloud drives multihoming for 
end-sites/consumers, it drives a demand for connectivity diversity so 
that one failure mode doesn't leave you stranded.
> - Matt