Sent from my iPad
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <o...@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….) >> >> Comcast >> Verizon >> AT&T >> Time Warner Cable >> Cox >> CenturyLink >> >> to name a few. >> >> Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber. > > Who cares? [See below.] > Not one of them will run BGP with a commercial subscriber using a cost-effective edge technology. > >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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". > In so many words, no, but it is the net effect when you distill down the other contents of the matrix. > 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. I pay $99/month to Comcast and they won't even give me a static address. That's a "business class" service from them. OTOH, I have two ISPs that do BGP with me for free. > "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. The barrier is lower, but it's still higher than it should be. > 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"?) I'm paying way more per month to the providers that refuse to do BGP with/for me than I am paying to the providers that ARE doing BGP with/for me. Clearly money is not the issue. Owen
