Verizon FiOS - is BGP an option?

Wed Mar 14 20:24:08 UTC 2012

On 3/14/2012 3:32 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
>> Most competitive ISP's (such as Sonic and ourselves) a very flexible 
>> to customer's needs and are willing to support custom configurations 
>> but .. it has to make business sense...and the underlying 
>> infrastructure be able to support that configuration.
>
> I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you, or implying otherwise here.
That is understood..
> The point (and this goes back to my original post) was that VZ is 
> missing out on revenue (and customer service, but let's not get ahead 
> of ourselves...)
Our concept of 'revenue' and large provider's concept of 'revenue' is 
very different ....
> opportunities by not offering such a thing as an add-on for their 
> business-
> class FiOS services.
It may sound simple to you and I, but the bigger challenge is on the 
support side  how to deal with a more complex issue, and how to justify 
having more expensive support engineers ... etc..
> If they brand it and bill at as a business-class
> service, then allowing someone to multihome using FiOS and something else
> does not seem like such an unreasonable request.
>
On the surface this does not sound unreasonable, until you take into 
consideration that Support issues now would requires someone (or more 
like a team of folks) who is running cost is about $100 to $250 / hr  
(engineers, support structure, etc etc etc) ...... for a service which 
is approx in the same $ figure for MRR...

> As others have mentioned, if 19262 would toss in a few 
> route-reflectors and let their customers EBGP-multihop to them, that 
> would be a step in the right direction.  In the scenario I'm working 
> on at the moment, default, or default+customer routes would be 
> perfectly fine.  I neither want nor need a full view for this 
> application.
>
while this is reasonable, we all have to keep in mind, that you can I 
can 'toss' in route-reflectors for a few hundred to a few thousand 
dollars each... Folks like VZ and AT&T pay top dollars for top capacity 
equipment to handle stuff.. so you are talking about a few 
'route-reflectors' for $50k or $150k each ? ....
(Remember these are the folks who are paying full prices on the Cisco / 
Juniper boxes.....)

if you ever looked at the Cisco Top of the line router.. ( I don't 
remember what it called, but do remember the starting price for a base 
config is $250K, going up to $750k... was designed to meet the demands 
of larger network operators such as VZ / AT&T etc...)

As for the Cable Companies, most of them out-source network management / 
upgrade and upkeep to folks like Scientific Atlanta (a division of 
Cisco).. that is why when you call in for network support issues, you 
get someone who is not technically proficient with all aspects of 
networking... because they don't have them....

 >>>> In the scenario I'm working on at the moment, default, or 
default+customer routes would be perfectly fine.  I neither want nor 
need a full view for this >>>>application.

There are existing solutions which are very easy to implement, which 
will allow you to do this, without having to deal too much with the 
underlying carrier ....
so my question becomes.... if you need this, and you can solve this 
easily from your side... why do you want a behemoth to change and 
deliver ?.... (Even if they did you are not going to be happy with how 
they are performing ...).

> jms
>
>