In message <59415DCC-2D4E-4DD9-87C9-0B56BF24FCCF@ianai.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmor e" writes:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I don't know a single ISP that wants to throttle growth by not = accepting additional customers, BGP speaking or not. (I do know several = that want to throttle growth through not upgrading their links because = they have a captive audience they are trying to ransom. But that is = neither relevant to this discussion, not controversial - unless you are = paid by one of those ISPs=85.) =20 Comcast Verizon AT&T Time Warner Cable Cox CenturyLink =20 to name a few. =20 Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber.
Who cares? [See below.]
And please don't reply with "then why can't I run BGP on my = [cable|DSL|etc.] link?" Broadband providers are not trying to throttle = growth by not allowing grandma to do BGP, and swapping to LISP or = anything else won't change that. =20 Sure they are. If they weren't, it would be relatively straight = forward to add the necessary options to DHCP for a minimal (accept = default, advertise local) BGP configuration and it would be quite simple = for CPE router manufacturers to incorporate those capabilities. =20 The problem is BGP doesn't scale to that level and everyone knows it, = so, we limit growth by not allowing it to be a possibility.
This is patently false. No network has a decision matrix that is "BGP = doesn't scale, so let's refuse money from customers".
Every single one of the companies you listed will run BGP with = customers. You limited this to "residential subscriber". Companies do = not have only "residential customers". Pay more, get more. Pay $40, get = less. Shocker.
"Not if you don't pay for it" is not a valid argument against "every = $COMPANY has $FEATURE".
I said the barrier to entry for multihoming was lower than it has ever = been. I didn't say it was zero.
You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the = doubt and assume you just kinda-sortta forgot or did not consider the = whole "money" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every = Internet entity exists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell = me about the N% which are non-profits, despite the fact I said = "nearly"?)
--=20 TTFN, patrick
And homenet at the IETF demonstrated multi-homed residential connections with IPv6 without NAT using multiple PA addresses. If a upsteam goes down the connections over that upstream break. New connection use the working upstream. It's not quite the same as using PI but it is a 99.9% solution. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org