[155368] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Aug 6 16:31:42 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <50202622.8010706@ispalliance.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:27:54 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Respectfully, I disagree... I think this is a causal chain...
1. Lack of cost-effective BGP-based service means that
2. CPE vendors are not motivated to provide self-configuring =
bgp-speaking routers to behave in this manner means that
3. SMBs seek other solutions using available CPE technology.
If cost-effective BGP-based service were available, providers would =
likely work with CPE vendors to get automation features added to =
products to support such services and multihomed organizations would =
definitely want to use those features.
Owen
On Aug 6, 2012, at 13:16 , Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net> wrote:
> Probability is much too strong IMO. Most businesses don't even =
consider multi-homing and many that do use NAT devices with several =
connections rather than trying to run BGP.
>=20
> #not associated nor do I recommend, just an example
>=20
> http://www.fatpipeinc.com/warp/index.html
>=20
>=20
>> This ignores the probability that cost effective BGP service =
availability would
>> strongly drive demand for AS Numbers and adoption of the technology.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
>=20
