In message <59415dcc-2d4e-4dd9-87c9-0b56bf24f...@ianai.net>, "Patrick W. Gilmor e" writes: > 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=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: ma...@isc.org
