[161604] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Wed Mar 20 21:12:11 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <6B67CB99-CF60-4F9D-A9B9-337B18764F3F@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:11:58 -0600
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> I don't want the residential customers themselves running BGP at all. =
However, if there were motivation on the provider side, automated BGP =
configuration could enable consumers to attach to multiple providers and =
actually reduce support calls significantly.
Okay, I'll agree, but "if there were motivation" is a very large "if"...
The only motivation would be money, as represented by customers leaving=20=
to competitors as a result of a service provider not offering your =
proposed=20
service bundle. =20
If you can figure out a way to persuade service providers of this =
belief,
I would ask that you also persuade them that they have to offer =
dual-stack=20
for all of their customers (which may have already resulted in them =
losing=20
a small number of customers who expected IPv6 by now... :-)
Thanks!
/John
