FIBER CUT: Dallas to West Coast

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

> I don't know what the goal of "basement dual-homers" is. I think that
> is the other thread, which I haven't been keeping up with.

My point was simply that the "basement dual-homers" probably want the same
thing as the "people that matter", which is disparate paths to the
Internet.

Maybe Bill Gates' or C. Michael Armstrong's homes have dual-entrance
cable vaults, but I suspect most basement dual-homers don't have
disparate paths to the Internet nor or really looking for that level
of reliability.

How many people choose a second voice long distance company for their
homes?

So what do basement dual-homers really want? Most folks seem to be
trying to protect themselves from the business practices of their provider,
not necessarily the physical problems. Are we solving the wrong problem
precisely?

Except for the small problem that there is no guarantee that DNS servers
will honor TTLs, that this solution would necessitate dialing down
TTLs to the lowest possible value to maximize effectiveness which would
greatly increase DNS-related traffic, and flapping could be really ugly.

DNS in lieu of a routing protocol make me uncomfortable.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Problems are rarely solved
before there is critical need to solve them. Should we be trying to
use IP addresses as permanent identifies, or names? If it became a
critical issue, would programmers start/best practice using the second,
third, etc IP address returned in the DNS query? If a SYN fails, should
the IP stack flush the DNS cache entry and check for a fresh IP address?

I agree, using DNS in lieu of routing makes me uncomfortable. However,
we also need to remember the reliable "service" we are creating is really
at Layer 8. There may be a need for some smarter middle-ware (I hate that
term) which spackles over some of the bumps and gaps. IP emulates a
reliable network over an unreliable infrastructure. Do we also need
an App/IP layerto emulate reliable services over an unreliable IP network?

I would rather add a new floor on top, than trying to jack up the foundation
and change the basement.

2

> > I don't know what the goal of "basement dual-homers" is. I think that
> > is the other thread, which I haven't been keeping up with.
>
> My point was simply that the "basement dual-homers" probably want the same
> thing as the "people that matter", which is disparate paths to the
> Internet.

Maybe Bill Gates' or C. Michael Armstrong's homes have dual-entrance
cable vaults, but I suspect most basement dual-homers don't have
disparate paths to the Internet nor or really looking for that level
of reliability.

Sean, I think there is a disconnect in definitions. Randy's orignal rant
defined anyone that didn't have >= /20 worth of space and 2xDS3's as a
potential "basement dual-homer."

By that definition there are a large number of "basement dual-homers" out
there.

So what do basement dual-homers really want? Most folks seem to be
trying to protect themselves from the business practices of their provider,
not necessarily the physical problems. Are we solving the wrong problem
precisely?

Well, as a "basement dual-homer"(by Randy's definition), I want disparate
paths, as well as insulation from poor service and/or the complete
failure(as a business) of a given organization. Having suffered at the
hands of various bandwidth and large colo providers over the years("yes
your service was down for 3 hours, where would you like your check for $27.12
sent?") I would never in good conscience recommend that an organization
which wishes to provide 24/7 availability single-home, and based on my
experience I reject the notion that there are magic providers out there
that never go down.

3

> DNS in lieu of a routing protocol make me uncomfortable.

I agree, using DNS in lieu of routing makes me uncomfortable.

I would rather add a new floor on top, than trying to jack up the foundation
and change the basement.

The basement is what's leaking. A new roof won't help.

Also, DNS has loads of issues here which make it somewhat unsuitable for this
purpose [1].

Another point, you would be bumping up the DNS cache sizes dramatically.
Ass-u-me a 300 byte response for every query, and it really starts adding up,
especially if you are talking about /24 or heaven forbid /32 entries. You
would almost certainly run out of usable memory on your DNS caches long before
you had solved the original problem.

All told, better to fix the routing system than to lay it on DNS.

[1] http://www.ehsco.com/misc/draft-hall-dns-data-00.txt which has not yet
been submitted pending supplementary statistical research

4

Sean, I think there is a disconnect in definitions. Randy's orignal rant
defined anyone that didn't have >= /20 worth of space and 2xDS3's as a
potential "basement dual-homer."

Hm, we have a /19 (although we only use a /21 at present, but E1 + ~ T1.
If that means someone will be calling us basement dual homers, fine. As
long as that doesn't mean we only get second rate connectivity, that is.

I'm afraid the large networks are looking for an excuse to push the small
ones out of business, by badmouthing "basement dual-homers" while in fact
they themselves are the ones that bloat the global routing table.

By that definition there are a large number of "basement dual-homers" out
there.

I don't think there are many "real" basement dual-homers. Getting a second
line, an AS number and a decent router are too expensive if you don't make
a reasonable amount of money on selling network services.

Well, as a "basement dual-homer"(by Randy's definition), I want disparate
paths, as well as insulation from poor service and/or the complete
failure(as a business) of a given organization. Having suffered at the
hands of various bandwidth and large colo providers over the years("yes
your service was down for 3 hours, where would you like your check for $27.12
sent?") I would never in good conscience recommend that an organization
which wishes to provide 24/7 availability single-home, and based on my
experience I reject the notion that there are magic providers out there
that never go down.

My feeling is that the only way for a small network to compete with the
large ones is by multihoming. If a small network connects to a larger
network, it can only resell the larger network's services at a higher
price and lower availability. So if the small network wants to compete on
anything other than service, it has to connect to two large networks so
its uptime is better than that of any of the those networks individually.