nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:25:10 -0500
Sent from my iPad On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran () istaff org> wrote:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:And please don't reply with "then why can't I run BGP on my [cable|DSL|etc.] link?" Broadband providers are not trying to throttle growth by not allowing grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or anything else won't change that.Sure they are. If they weren't, it would be relatively straight forward to add the necessary options to DHCP for a minimal (accept default, advertise local) BGP configuration and it would be quite simple for CPE router manufacturers to incorporate those capabilities. The problem is BGP doesn't scale to that level and everyone knows it, so, we limit growth by not allowing it to be a possibility.I suspect it has nothing to do with the scaling properties of routing tables and everything to do with customer support costs. The metrics associated with broadband services are quite daunting; i.e. costs from a single technical customer support call can exceed the entire expected profit over the typical customer contract period...
An interesting idea. In my case, I average about 3 calls per month to Comcast. I suspect this more than consumes the $99/month I pay them for internet service. Further, I often get service credits out of those calls that further reduce their income. If they provided native dual-stack with BGP and their service didn't go down on a regular basis, it would result in fewer calls, at least from me.
In such circumstances, you really don't want any quantity of residential customers running BGP, as it increases the probability of customer care calls. It's only at a different revenue point (i.e. "small-business service") that it becomes viable.
I don't want the residential customers themselves running BGP at all. However, if there were motivation on the provider side, automated BGP configuration could enable consumers to attach to multiple providers and actually reduce support calls significantly. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification], (continued)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Kyle Creyts (Mar 24)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] George Herbert (Mar 24)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Owen DeLong (Mar 24)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 25)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] William Herrin (Mar 23)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Owen DeLong (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Mark Andrews (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] John Curran (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Owen DeLong (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] John Curran (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Owen DeLong (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Jimmy Hess (Mar 22)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] William Herrin (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Brielle Bruns (Mar 20)
- Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification] Andrew D Kirch (Mar 20)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification David Conrad (Mar 20)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification Sander Steffann (Mar 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification Masataka Ohta (Mar 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification Arturo Servin (Mar 18)