Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:36:26 -0700

On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
As much as I'd love for
Verizon to offer BGP directly over FIOS there are fewer than 40,000
I'm curious as to your number... where is that from?
sent to your mailbox every week

         AS Summary

       41838    Number of ASes in routing system


the majority of those are stub ASes and more than 1/3 of them are announcing only one prefix.

The addressable market of potential multihomers is probably larger than that. but frankly there's a lot of friction that makes the proposition less than worthwhile for most businesses.

e.g. p.i. versus pa prefix assignment.

longish commitments to two or more providers




In ipv4 land, a nat box with two uplinks is probably a 90% solution for most non-services-offering high(er) availability needing small businesses.
Marhsall had noted a number of 'small businesses' in the US at ~1.4m
as of ~2006ish?

I'd think that there are many use-cases where BGP is useful for end
users of FIOS, turning out a 'business' class of service without BGP
seems like a less useful 'business' solution (especially where the sla
isn't really much better than the consumer solution).


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]