mailing list archives
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:02:04 -0700
On Aug 6, 2012, at 07:21 , Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:49:07AM -0500, jamie rishaw wrote:
It's a short sighted result created by the lack of competition.
IP access is a commodity service, with thin margins that will only
get thinner. Right now those margins are being propped up in many
locations by monopoly or near-monopoly status, which creates a
situation where companies neither need to compete on features and
service quality nor do they need to turn to those areas to maintain
If there was meaningful competition, the margin on raw IP access
would decline and companies would have to turn to value-add services
to maintain a profit margin. From the simple up-sell of a static
IP address that some do today, to a fee for BGP, a fee for DDOS
mitigation, and so on. These are all things it's not uncommon to
see when buying service in carrier netural colos where there is
There is no technological problem here. BGP to the end user has a
cost. The current business climate is causing people to cut all
possible costs and offering no incentive to innvovate and up-charge.
Which leads to an interesting question. If on top of your $100/month
"business class Internet" the provider were to charge $50/month for
"BGP Access" to cover their costs of having a human configure the
session, larger access gear to handle the routes, and larger backbone
gear to deal with a larger routing table, would you still be as
gung ho about BGP to the business?
I'd pay it in a heartbeat.
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we? Leo Bicknell (Aug 06)
- Re: IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?), (continued)