"BGP at home": getting a DIA circuit installed at home
I&#x27;ve been running BGP at home for the last 10 years, and in my area, most ISPs prefer to use Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) for BGP sessions. Fortunately, I live in a place where there are a few smaller ISPs with around 2000-3000 customers that are willing to run BGP with me as a home user. They&#x27;re impressed that I have BGP, ASN, and IPs as a home user, and I think it&#x27;s pretty cool too. Additionally, running one more BGP session makes their network appear larger, so they benefit as well.<p>I currently have a BGP session with one of my ISPs on the 15 euro plan (1 Gbps), and another local ISP is giving me 10 Gbps for free because I&#x27;m a test user. Both of these ISPs support BGP, and it&#x27;s amazing that I can have BGP sessions as a home user. However, it can be challenging to speak with regular sales reps who may not be familiar with BGP. It takes persistence and some effort to get to the network administrator.<p>It&#x27;s frustrating that some ISPs make it artificially difficult for home users to obtain a BGP session, even when they&#x27;re not asking for SLAs or dedicated connections. Technically, you can even run a BGP session over dial-up. It seems like these restrictions are in place to squeeze more money from customers.<p>It&#x27;s no secret that we&#x27;ve run out of IPv4 addresses, and I happen to have a &#x2F;24 subnet just for myself. Even with all my usage, I barely use half of it. There&#x27;s no rule that says ISPs should only accept &#x2F;24 or shorter prefixes, and this is contributing to the depletion of IPv4 addresses. I would happily announce a &#x2F;25 and return the other &#x2F;25 to the world, but I must have a &#x2F;24 to do it. This practice of requiring &#x2F;24 subnets may have made sense in the past to preserve router memory, but with today&#x27;s technology, it&#x27;s nonsensical and only serves to artificially deplete available IPv4 addresses.