[155354] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Mon Aug 6 10:45:51 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUM6eRbBzp8YmWTnTD2pf7EmEzr383D+6W6Co5gL=OeYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:45:03 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>>> As much as I'd love for
>>> Verizon to offer BGP directly over FIOS there are fewer than 40,000
>>
>> I'm curious as to your number... where is that from?
>> Marhsall had noted a number of 'small businesses' in the US at ~1.4m
>> as of ~2006ish?
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Lacking any reason to believe otherwise, I estimate the number of BGP
> users at reasonably close to the number of autonomous systems in the
> Internet BGP table. Technically that doesn't have to be true... but
> given the debugging nuissance associated with private AS numbers and
> the trivial ease and cost with which an AS is registered it seems
> likely to me.
I know that 701 had many 'private' (AS7046) customer peerings than
public... it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that other
networks have the same situation. I think Marshall's numbers were
based on some small-business-SEC thing, it'd be nice if he piped up
with where he got the number though :(
