Tom, > 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.
I don't think this is a valid expectation. The reality is they just make it work with current products, over IPv4, and the IPv6 usage graph is stuck at 50% and doesn't really move up (at least not fast enough). Tnx Arie On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 8:28 AM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/B4ENUXGDORYQOZ7T4FVPUO4HJ4C7ORC3/
