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

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin <bill () 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


         AS Summary

       41838    Number of ASes in routing system

http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#General_Status

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

facilties

expertise

...

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).
>
> -chris