North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
- From: Vadim Antonov
- Date: Tue Jan 30 22:48:22 1996
The zero-settlement scheme works ok as long as interconnected
parties are of about the same size.
That makes them suffer equally from routing bloat.
Incidentally, that was part of the reasoning after Sprint's
IXP peering policy.
In any case having zillions of small ISPs to be at top-level IXPs is
economical and technical insanity, and it seems that it can only be
fixed by rather steep settlements at IXPs to make it a very expensive
BTW, "settlements for routes" is a rather interesting thing.
Imagine, say, Sprint peering with Joe Blow Internet-And-Burgers.
Let's assume that route costs $100/yr, so Sprint pays $1M/yr to
JBIB and JBIB pays back $300/yr. Sounds like a good business
for JBIB :)
The better idea is auctioning and trading the routing slots, though
it is unclear where the proceeds from the initial auction should
go. Probably to fund the Network Police which would chase the
bootleg route injectors.
I don't know what you make of it, but i think that sucks a lot more
than the zero-sum model we have now.
Not speaking for Sprint.
PS Given the choice between fixing the technology and fixing the
society it is always more prudent to go after technology.
>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Jan 30 20:56:10 1996
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [188.8.131.52]) by titan.sprintlink.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA11534 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:56:08 -0500
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au (nico.aarnet.edu.au [184.108.40.206]) by merit.edu (8.7.3/merit-2.0) with SMTP id TAA25560 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 19:59:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gih@localhost) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) id LAA25214; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:56:53 +1100
From: Geoff Huston <G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
To: email@example.com (Scott Huddle)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:56:53 +1100 (EST)
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
In-Reply-To: <199601310009.TAA06568@new6.Reston.mci.net> from "Scott Huddle" at Jan 30, 96 07:09:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Yes this inevitably leads to another instantiation of the Grande Olde
Religious War on Settlements. However now the folk who are religiously
tainted towards supporting the continued viability (or even absolute
necessity in some versions of the War) of zero dollar interconnection
now have the added hurdle of demonstrating how they can also solve the
routing table scaling issues as a basic precursor of demonstrating
that Zero Dollar settlements (aka free transit) is a Good Thing.
Good luck and may the force be with them.
And the forum in which this will happen? Personally I'm of the view
this is not an area which naturally lends itself to the open processes
of NANOG and the IETF. The most likely scenario is that the forum will
either be smoke-filled back rooms or elevated views on the 150th
floor, or both.
And no, this is not a completely comforting answer for many.
> > In the same way that giving away IP addresses and giving away IP
> > routing can only be described as a very bad case of irrational
> > behaviour, especially when the underlying resource is under stress as
> > it is at present, then I'd also note that giving away transit is
> > similarly a case completely irrational behaviour!
> Agreed, but doesn't this lead to the religious War On Settlements. Yakov's
> push/pull paper on route announcements coupled with traffic levies
> would seem to to address your point. Do you agree?
> > All this points to a desperate need for a more realistic economic
> > structure to be used within a number of key aspects of Internet
> > infrastructure.
> Agreed, what are the forums, though? There are both techie questions to
> be answered as well as hard business case scenarios. NANOG seem
> unlikely to address the former, where the IETF seems ill equipped to
> answer the latter.
> > Andrew's comments:
> > >
> > > > Half correct. Everyone in the area carries full routes for the block.
> > > > Everyone outside the area can listen to only the /8 advertisement.
> > >
> > > So these providers are providing the free transit to their
> > > non-customers?
> > >
> > > This does not make any business sense; it will not happen.
> > > --email@example.com (Andrew Partan)
> > >
> > >