BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
joelja at bogus.com
Mon Aug 6 09:36:26 CDT 2012
On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <bill at 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?
sent to your mailbox every week
41838 Number of ASes in routing system
the majority of those are stub ASes and more than 1/3 of them are
announcing only one prefix.
The addressable market of potential multihomers is probably larger than
that. but frankly there's a lot of friction that makes the proposition
less than worthwhile for most businesses.
e.g. p.i. versus pa prefix assignment.
longish commitments to two or more providers
In ipv4 land, a nat box with two uplinks is probably a 90% solution for
most non-services-offering high(er) availability needing small businesses.
> Marhsall had noted a number of 'small businesses' in the US at ~1.4m
> as of ~2006ish?
> I'd think that there are many use-cases where BGP is useful for end
> users of FIOS, turning out a 'business' class of service without BGP
> seems like a less useful 'business' solution (especially where the sla
> isn't really much better than the consumer solution).
More information about the NANOG