North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: B
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Mon Aug 24 14:25:35 1998
> >> Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste
> I think everyone agrees that the above statement is true in today's Internet
> model, where customers are charged flat rates for their connections. But if
> we change the peering model, why should we not change the model for
> charging customers? If we do that, then settlements can work, and the
> problem of metrics for how to charge should become much easier...
> Take the aggregate traffic from A --> B, and from B--> A, and whoever receives
> more bits pays the other provider. Say it is A that has to pay B, as B is a
> content provider and A is a big dial ISP. Now, if A charges $19.95/month flat
> rate to all of its dial users, A instantly loses. But if A charges its dial
> based on the bits received, or time connected, perhaps it becomes more even.
Or, let's say A finds artificial ways to send more traffic to B to balance it
out so they get charged less. Hmmm... I don't see any way changing the charging
model addresses that.
> Network A can't win in a settlement based peering relationship unless he passes
> the costs on to his customers, and at flat-rates, whether it is dial up or
> leased line,
Sure he can... He just has to change the traffic ratio.
> that is not happening. So, charge the content provider for outbound *and*
> traffic. This can and should be subsidized by advertisers, as the more 'hits'
> site generates, the more $$ you can charge. (Of course, this only works when
> advertisers are willing to pay to be on your site, but if they aren't
> willing, either
> your site has content that doesn't have mass appeal or the advertiser doesn't
> want to be associated with your content. For the former, you probably aren't
> getting enough hits to worry about usage based costs. For the latter, find
> advertiser or someone else to pay...) For the dialup user, charge him a lower
> monthly cost of, say $5, but charge him for the traffic to and from him.
> What's the
> cost? Whatever it takes to make money while remaining competitive!
I don't think that good content should have to succumb to advertising littering
it's pages in order to support itself. I don't think that ftp.cs.berkeley.edu
should have to install ADs in the readme files so that you see an ad everytime
you go to download sendmail, as an example. Get real.
> There are still problems with DOS based attacks, but those need to be resolved
> anyway. As for writing 'fraudulant apps' that generate asymmetric flows to
> try to
> 'even out' the peering relationship, it doesn't work anymore for creating flow
> to your own network. Your paying the other provider because they are sending
> you more traffic than you are sending them. For the opposite direction, if you
> can write an app that sends more traffic out to the other network, you'll need
> valid host to talk to. I'm sure the other provider won't have one of their own
> machines doing that, so you'll need a customer of the other network to receive
> that traffic. But now that they are charged for it, that won't happen. (I'm
> someone out there can think of ways around this, but I imagine there are
> solutions to them. If its fraudulent traffic, and you face serious fines and/or
> periods of time where you have to shut down your network, would you really
> take the chance?)
No you don't, you just need something inside one of the prefixes advertised to you.
In fact, it's easier to generate what you want to a host that doesn't respond.
No need to worry about the responses counteracting your intent. I'm not sure how
you would distinguish fraudulent traffic to enforce such a provision. Afterall,
it could look like a port scanner, or any number of other things.
Another question that evolves is how you measure this at the MAEs.
> Of course, the first ISP that starts to do usage-based charges may stand a good
> chance of losing many of their customers, so this would have to be Industry
> wide. And
> the peering charges would have to be the same (or at least on the same order of
> magnitude) between all ISPs, or peering imbalances will quickly be created.
> there will most likely have to be, at a minimum, an Independent Peering
> Council, or
> at worst, government regulation, to make this happen. :-(
The worst would be if this did happen. The proposal has _WAY_ too many holes
and sounds like exactly the kind of proposal that is why we all dread regulation
> DISCLAIMER: I'm not advocating this solution, and it may or may not express
> the views of my employer.
> I should also state that I am doing my M.S. Thesis on "The Evolution of
> Any original ideas I see on nanog (or com-priv, where this discussion really
> be) will be quoted as such!
> Sean Butler, CCIE #3897
> IBM Global Services -- OpenNet Support
> Phone: 8-631-9809, 813-523-7353
> Fax: 8-427-5475 813-878-5475
> Internet email: firstname.lastname@example.org