> > > 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). >
I'm unclear what you mean 'just works' with current products. I'm also unclear what v4 / v6 usage %'s has to do with this subject ( single vs dual ISP/uplink). On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 12:28 PM Arie Vayner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/YLV3NK25FADXMZYZUQUXZUGYTZN3MMZR/
