On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:16:57 -0500, Owen DeLong said:
On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
Based on the average clue of your average residential subscriber (anyone here need not apply) I'd say that's a good thing.
If BGP were plug-and-play automated with settings specified by the provider, what would the user's clue level have to do with it?
The hypothetical existence of such a box doesn't change the fact that providers have to make business decisions based on actual boxes and users.
Providers who don't wish to be leap-frogged have to make business decisions about unserved and underserved demand for which they don't already have an effective product.
Yes, if a plug-n-play idiot-proof BGP box existed, then the profit calculus would be different. On the other hand, if there existed a reliable cost-effective means for faster-than-light signaling, if would drastically change intercontinental peering patterns.
That's not a particularly compelling counterpoint. We have a mechanism for multihoming: BGP. We have a mechanism for flying to the moon: rocket ships. At a strictly technical level, either could be made suitable for use by John Q. Public. In both cases the cost attributable to John Q's desired activity, when using known techniques, greatly exceeds his budget. That having been said, I'd be very interested in your take on how FTL would change intercontinental peering patterns. How would dropping all links to a 0 ms latency change the ways in which we choose to interconnect and why? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004