BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Aug 6 20:02:04 UTC 2012

On Aug 6, 2012, at 07:21 , Leo Bicknell <bicknell at> wrote:

> In a message written on Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:49:07AM -0500, jamie rishaw wrote:
>> discuss.
> It's a short sighted result created by the lack of competition.
> IP access is a commodity service, with thin margins that will only
> get thinner.  Right now those margins are being propped up in many
> locations by monopoly or near-monopoly status, which creates a
> situation where companies neither need to compete on features and
> service quality nor do they need to turn to those areas to maintain
> a profit.
> If there was meaningful competition, the margin on raw IP access
> would decline and companies would have to turn to value-add services
> to maintain a profit margin.  From the simple up-sell of a static
> IP address that some do today, to a fee for BGP, a fee for DDOS
> mitigation, and so on.  These are all things it's not uncommon to
> see when buying service in carrier netural colos where there is
> competition.
> There is no technological problem here.  BGP to the end user has a
> cost.  The current business climate is causing people to cut all
> possible costs and offering no incentive to innvovate and up-charge.
> Which leads to an interesting question.  If on top of your $100/month
> "business class Internet" the provider were to charge $50/month for
> "BGP Access" to cover their costs of having a human configure the
> session, larger access gear to handle the routes, and larger backbone
> gear to deal with a larger routing table, would you still be as
> gung ho about BGP to the business?

I'd pay it in a heartbeat.


More information about the NANOG mailing list