North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: the cost of carrying routes
- From: Charles Youse
- Date: Mon Oct 14 17:20:37 2002
I think you're confusing commercial peering agreements with
providing customers the ability to advertise their routes via BGP.
Two different issues.
From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: the cost of carrying routes
Many carriers require that you advertise a certain minimum number of
routes to them over your peering sessions, or they will not peer with
you. This suggests that those carriers see routes carried as a point of
value, rather than or in addition to one of cost. I have seen 5,000
routes as a minimum used by more than one transit-less carrier.
Is this really an operational value perception at these carriers, or is
it simply a means of creating a barrier-to-peering? Are fewer, shorter
prefixes seen as more valuable than longer ones, e.g. swamp /24s? Is a
University or other entity with a legacy /16 more or less valuable as a
peer than a growing ISP with a few /20s, and presumably more eyeballs
and/or content behind them?
Jeff S Wheeler <email@example.com>
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:47, Ron da Silva wrote:
> Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer
> If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24)
> that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you
> answer the above question differently?