RE: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)

[Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

> I'm now convinced that the proverbial ship has sailed. NAT had to be developed for IPv6. It will be used. It is here 
> to stay. The "NAT is cancer" statement is old hat and no longer relevant.

And for those customers who do 1:many nat, my software just won't support them. It's simple enough.

NPT/1:1 NAT is fine. PAT 1:many is not. The "NAT is cancer" statement is entirely relevant. 

NPT for SMB stuff is braindead simple - click a few checkboxes. That's the 1:1 scenario that just works and doesn't 
require extra code (outside of external address detection) to support unlike 1:many PAT. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 9:15 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Brian Knight <ml () knight-networks com>
Subject: Re: BGP user friendliness (was Re: IPv4 flag day)

So, to summarize the responses so far:

* We don't want uninformed users to multihome using BGP because it is difficult (which is a very fair statement)
* We want them to use NAT44 or NAT66 or NPT or PAT
* Servers in IP ranges that need to be multihomed could also use QUIC or DNS to provide multipath connections

I know from experience that VPN tunnels (or SD-WAN) are another option.

I'm not necessarily advocating that world + dog use BGP for multihoming. 
I'm making the point that true multihoming is out of reach for many small shops. And that's by design. No one is 
working to make using BGP easier.

I'm now convinced that the proverbial ship has sailed. NAT had to be developed for IPv6. It will be used. It is here to 
stay. The "NAT is cancer" statement is old hat and no longer relevant.

I have never deployed IPv6 NAT for multihoming, but I have deployed IPv4 NAT/PAT for it.

If deploying IPv6 NAT is as difficult as folks say, it's time to make it simpler so SMBs can do what they already know 
how to do.

They have few alternatives, and NAT is going to be among the least costly options.

-Brian


On 2026-06-21 22:22, Brian Knight via NANOG wrote:
> Is there any current effort underway to make BGP more accessible, 
> user-friendly, or "plug and play?" Anything that might address some of 
> the more technically demanding aspects of multihoming?
>
> Quick Google says no, but maybe someone has more awareness.
>
> I'm pipe-dreaming BGP multihoming becoming as simple as connecting two 
> Internet links to a CPE, with no reduction in MTU. No SD-WAN, no 
> tunnels, no NAT. Works over any kind of link: 5G, wifi, GPON, cable, 
> fiber, carrier pigeon.
>
> CPE vendors might set up web pages that request IPs and an ASN for you. 
> Sets up ROAs, IRR, and the CPE, start to finish.
>
> Maybe there's a new protocol where the carrier auto-generates a BGP 
> multihoming token and sends it to the user in the order docs. User 
> sets the token on the CPE interface facing that provider. Successful 
> negotiation lets the customer announce their prefix and ASN. CPE and 
> carrier manage it all, no network staff needed.
>
> -Brian
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RFEJ4FRNN7TXCL2H7KMCN3LRX73M6WEV/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/SN7XYZVZJCT5IUUSVEVI623FSDK2ZM6J/