routing table go boom

Wed Mar 20 17:44:25 UTC 2013

On Mar 20, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Mike <mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 	I appreciate everyones comments on this issue but I think you
> nay-sayers are going to lose. I think the future of the internet is
> distributed routing where the end points ultimately decide how their
> packets flow. I think joe 6-pack should in fact be able to be connected
> to as many providers as he wants, should be able to specify any mixture
> of connections from consumer dsl to carrier ethernet or beyond, and have
> the same level of service as multi-homed bgp speaking networks do today
> in terms of route diversity, fail-over and 'portability' (in terms of
> bringing your netblocks to another provider). Not a troll, just looking
> at the future here.

I certainly think there's a lot that can be done at middle-layers, eg: tunnels
to a few different providers.  I can be on a Comcast CM and ATT DSL link and
establish a link to a tunnel destination in Chicago that is low-latency for me
and the bits will all flow that way.  

The last mile loop problem though?

As of today, neither of those two providers reaches my home with their service.
I doubt I'm going to see a lot of choice unless the market changes considerably.
The last-mile costs are all in the contractors, permits and engineering studies
for weight on the poles.  (Or directional boring/conduit costs underground).

Locally the permit is $200/road crossed, either above or under, this starts
to contribute to the build cost in unexpected ways.  If you looked at the google
fiber proposal, they wanted space on both poles and otherwise to minimize permitting
and other costs.

Last time I talked to someone about outside plant construction the answer was
the cost was functionally strand-agnostic.  That tells me the cost isn't in
the cabling.

- Jared