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

[Arie Vayner via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Tom,

> If someone wants 2 upstreams , that's easy. If they expect it to function
a certain way, that may require more complexity that has to be paid for. (
in equipment or expertise.)  Or > they can just swap cables and reboot
something once in a while, and find that acceptable.

I don't think this is a valid expectation.

The reality is they just make it work with current products, over IPv4, and
the IPv6 usage graph is stuck at 50% and doesn't really move up (at least
not fast enough).

Tnx
Arie



On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 8:28 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> BUT: we can't expect everyone who wants to connect to the Internet to have
> > that level of competence.
> > If someone's a graphic designer working from home, and they want
> > resiliency with 2x ISPs, I don't think we can expect them to have (or be
> > able to afford) the level of competency required to run BGP with 2 ISPs.
>
> This is just the standard complexity vs cost question.
>
> If someone wants 2 upstreams , that's easy. If they expect it to function
> a certain way, that may require more complexity that has to be paid for. (
> in equipment or expertise.)  Or they can just swap cables and reboot
> something once in a while, and find that acceptable.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 1:56 PM Arie Vayner <ariev () vayner net> wrote:
>
> > I think I see a misalignment with reality:
> >
> > > Simple BGP config is not that demanding. If you're going to connect a
> > > device to the public internet with BGP, it should require a basic level
> > of
> > > competence.
> >
> > Yes, anyone using "BGP to connect to the Internet" is required to have
> > some level of competence, agreed.
> >
> > BUT: we can't expect everyone who wants to connect to the Internet to
> > have that level of competence.
> > If someone's a graphic designer working from home, and they want
> > resiliency with 2x ISPs, I don't think we can expect them to have (or be
> > able to afford) the level of competency required to run BGP with 2 ISPs.
> >
> > Instead, I think a more realistic approach would be for them to go to
> > their closest electronics retailer, buy a fancy "dual ISP" router, then
> > just order 2 ISP services from whatever's available in their region, plug
> > in, and forget about it.
> >
> > Unfortunately, getting things like NPTv6, or anything that the IPv6
> > standards/BCPs state today will really work with IPv6 for the above setup,
> > and the end result will be that they will stay on IPv4, with a 2xWAN NAT
> > setup.
> > From my recent experience with 2 large ISPs providing services in my
> > area, their IPv6 setups would not have worked together with NPTv6
> > (different pool sizes, one of them only supporting a single /64 and the
> > other one requiring deep tweaking to get anything more than a /64 to work)
> >
> > Tnx
> > Arie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 5:19 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG <
> > nanog () lists nanog org> 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?
> > >
> > >
> > > Simple BGP config is not that demanding. If you're going to connect a
> > > device to the public internet with BGP, it should require a basic level
> > > of
> > > competence.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > None of this stuff should be 'ez-mode' for the uninformed user.  Heck,
> > > informed users make a mess of it a lot of the time.
> > >
> > > Home install kits and plug and play doesn't work at a certain point. Stop
> > > trying to shoehorn it.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 11:23 PM Brian Knight via NANOG <
> > > nanog () lists nanog org> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2026-06-21 19:29, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG wrote:
> > > > > Sure, have every hotdog cart run BGP, pretty soon we'll need 64 bit
> > > AS
> > > > > numbers :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:29 PM Mike Hammett via NANOG <
> > > > > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > Mike Hammett
> > > > > > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Brothers WISP
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > NANOG mailing list
> > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/7AMX6YN4MRTN7UQ5CQFNYI3KJCKKFJMZ/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> > >
> > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/MIC6KX6AZKYZ5OWF4YBPG6754POTGOEI/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/B4ENUXGDORYQOZ7T4FVPUO4HJ4C7ORC3/