> > BUT: we can't expect everyone who wants to connect to the Internet to have > that level of competence. > If someone's a graphic designer working from home, and they want > resiliency with 2x ISPs, I don't think we can expect them to have (or be > able to afford) the level of competency required to run BGP with 2 ISPs. >
This is just the standard complexity vs cost question. If someone wants 2 upstreams , that's easy. If they expect it to function a certain way, that may require more complexity that has to be paid for. ( in equipment or expertise.) Or they can just swap cables and reboot something once in a while, and find that acceptable. On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 1:56 PM Arie Vayner <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I see a misalignment with reality: > > > Simple BGP config is not that demanding. If you're going to connect a > > device to the public internet with BGP, it should require a basic level > of > > competence. > > Yes, anyone using "BGP to connect to the Internet" is required to have > some level of competence, agreed. > > BUT: we can't expect everyone who wants to connect to the Internet to have > that level of competence. > If someone's a graphic designer working from home, and they want > resiliency with 2x ISPs, I don't think we can expect them to have (or be > able to afford) the level of competency required to run BGP with 2 ISPs. > > Instead, I think a more realistic approach would be for them to go to > their closest electronics retailer, buy a fancy "dual ISP" router, then > just order 2 ISP services from whatever's available in their region, plug > in, and forget about it. > > Unfortunately, getting things like NPTv6, or anything that the IPv6 > standards/BCPs state today will really work with IPv6 for the above setup, > and the end result will be that they will stay on IPv4, with a 2xWAN NAT > setup. > From my recent experience with 2 large ISPs providing services in my area, > their IPv6 setups would not have worked together with NPTv6 (different pool > sizes, one of them only supporting a single /64 and the other one requiring > deep tweaking to get anything more than a /64 to work) > > Tnx > Arie > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 5:19 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Is there any current effort underway to make BGP more accessible, >> > user-friendly, or "plug and play?" Anything that might address some of >> > the more technically demanding aspects of multihoming? >> >> >> Simple BGP config is not that demanding. If you're going to connect a >> device to the public internet with BGP, it should require a basic level of >> competence. >> >> CPE vendors might set up web pages that request IPs and an ASN for you. >> > Sets up ROAs, IRR, and the CPE, start to finish. >> >> >> None of this stuff should be 'ez-mode' for the uninformed user. Heck, >> informed users make a mess of it a lot of the time. >> >> Home install kits and plug and play doesn't work at a certain point. Stop >> trying to shoehorn it. >> >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 11:23 PM Brian Knight via NANOG < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Is there any current effort underway to make BGP more accessible, >> > user-friendly, or "plug and play?" Anything that might address some of >> > the more technically demanding aspects of multihoming? >> > >> > Quick Google says no, but maybe someone has more awareness. >> > >> > I'm pipe-dreaming BGP multihoming becoming as simple as connecting two >> > Internet links to a CPE, with no reduction in MTU. No SD-WAN, no >> > tunnels, no NAT. Works over any kind of link: 5G, wifi, GPON, cable, >> > fiber, carrier pigeon. >> > >> > CPE vendors might set up web pages that request IPs and an ASN for you. >> > Sets up ROAs, IRR, and the CPE, start to finish. >> > >> > Maybe there's a new protocol where the carrier auto-generates a BGP >> > multihoming token and sends it to the user in the order docs. User sets >> > the token on the CPE interface facing that provider. Successful >> > negotiation lets the customer announce their prefix and ASN. CPE and >> > carrier manage it all, no network staff needed. >> > >> > -Brian >> > >> > >> > On 2026-06-21 19:29, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG wrote: >> > > Sure, have every hotdog cart run BGP, pretty soon we'll need 64 bit AS >> > > numbers :) >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 6:29 PM Mike Hammett via NANOG < >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Most pizza shops aren't going to be able to manage BGP. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ----- >> > >> Mike Hammett >> > >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> > >> >> > >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> > >> >> > >> The Brothers WISP >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NANOG mailing list >> > >> > >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7AMX6YN4MRTN7UQ5CQFNYI3KJCKKFJMZ/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MIC6KX6AZKYZ5OWF4YBPG6754POTGOEI/ > > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7AJTPSWZIS37HTGF5KOLTVBZ4XK7SPUK/
