There are starting to be a major difference in cost for supporting bgp. Taking a look at routing table size, many people are going to see troubles around 512k routes. Placing you on a device that doesn't need a full table or one at all will result in lower capital costs and lower operational costs as fewer features need to be toyed with.
Static routes work on nearly every device :-) - Jared On May 25, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Bhatia <m...@anuragbhatia.com> wrote: > Hello everyone > > > I have been aggressively looking for deals in servers in Europe for > anycasting. One thing which surprises me is the "setup costs" for BGP. Few > providers quoted additional $50-100 which looks OK but a few of them quoted > as high as $150 *extra every month* just for having BGP (no full routing > table, but just default route pointing). Is there's any technical logic > behind such heavy costs? I mean at the end of day we are all talking at > layer 3 and thus it does not involves any hard connection/physical work. > What other members pay for BGP setup costs? > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Anurag Bhatia > anuragbhatia.com > or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected > network! > > Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | > Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| > Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
