Re: Is multihoming hard? [was: DNS amplification]

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:20 , Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:


> > > Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber.
> >
> > Who cares? [See below.]
> Not one of them will run BGP with a commercial subscriber using a cost-effective edge technology.

[snip]

I'm literally at a loss how to respond.

This whole post is either a contradiction ("ISPs do free BGP", "the barrier to entry for BGP is higher than it should 
be"), or non-sequitors ("Comcast charges me $99 and doesn't give me a static IP address", uh... so?), or simply wrong 
statements ("BGP doesn't scale so we limit growth", "no we don't", "not in so many words, but yes we do").

What exactly are you trying to say? Because I apparently am too stupid to understand.


> > You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just kinda-sortta 
> > forgot or did not consider the whole "money" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every Internet entity 
> > exists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell me about the N% which are non-profits, despite the fact I 
> > said "nearly"?)
>
> I'm paying way more per month to the providers that refuse to do BGP with/for me than I am paying to the providers 
> that ARE doing BGP with/for me. Clearly money is not the issue.

You are confused. Money is (to a first approximation) ALWAYS the problem. Just because two companies sell things at 
different prices does not mean money is not at the heart of each company's pricing strategy. OF COURSE it is. They.... 
Oh, never mind.

I'm going to take away the benefit of the doubt I gave you.

And I think I'm going to stop feeding the ridiculously obvious troll.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick