The real problem with most basement multi-homers is they go with the cheapest local service they can get, often from someone clueless with one POP / one path. To fix this, they add another cheap, local, clueless service and pray they don't get clueless at the same time. Then they inflict bad judgement on the rest of the Internet by demanding their routes be distributed. Bad plan.
I do not think anyone (Randy included) is questioning the right of basement-dwellers to multihome (by my previous definition). I think what is being questioned by many and various is (a) their right to do it at other people's expense, without reimbursement (b) whether the (non-reimbursed) cost to the community is greater than the (non-paid for) gain to the community. (c) whether there are other technologies which cost less in total, and/or attribute cost more directly to those who benefit from it. (d) whether in an effort to achieve multihoming, they are selecting the technology which costs them the least, or costs the community the least. Whilst there is no current mechanism to reliably achieve (a) (beyond Roeland kindly offering to pay for Sean's routers), direct market forces fail, so, like with so many other problems, the internet community has come up with hueristic mechanisms to enforce (b) i.e. 'your reachability information is only worth the cost of my carrying it if it contains announcements shorter than a /nn, and I will rely on RIR's to demonstrate that there is a fair correlation between assigment size (and thus prefix length) and usefulness of the prefix to me. If all this sounds a bit "matter of opinion", type stuff, which will never get resolved, well, yes it is, and thus just the right sort of stuff for a flamewar on NANOG. Great, just so long as elsewhere, people are thinking about (c). And then we can have the adoption flamewar (d) on NANOG afterwards. -- Alex Bligh Personal Capacity