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

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Respectfully, I disagree... I think this is a causal chain...

1.      Lack of cost-effective BGP-based service means that
2.      CPE vendors are not motivated to provide self-configuring bgp-speaking routers to behave in this manner means 
that
3.      SMBs seek other solutions using available CPE technology.

If cost-effective BGP-based service were available, providers would likely work with CPE vendors to get automation 
features added to products to support such services and multihomed organizations would definitely want to use those 
features.

Owen

On Aug 6, 2012, at 13:16 , Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net> wrote:

> Probability is much too strong IMO.  Most businesses don't even consider multi-homing and many that do use NAT 
> devices with several connections rather than trying to run BGP.
>
> #not associated nor do I recommend, just an example
>
> http://www.fatpipeinc.com/warp/index.html
>
>
> > This ignores the probability that cost effective BGP service availability would
> > strongly drive demand for AS Numbers and adoption of the technology.
> >
> > Owen
>
>
> -- 
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------