Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [Re: the cost of carrying routes]

  • From: Ratul Mahajan
  • Date: Thu Oct 17 12:50:16 2002


On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Joshua Smith wrote:

> they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky'
> networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would
> not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations?  some nerve you have)
> it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be
> able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking. 

but i do pay for mistakes i make in other industries -- i pay for late
credit card payments and for parking where i should not. and these fines
keep me on my feet, and i try to blunder less often. why are running
networks different? 

whats the incentive today to not make mistakes while running a network,
especially mistakes those that don't hurt yourself much? there is only
some amount of social pressure i think. wouldn't configuration errors go
down if providers/peers were to charge less for well-managed networks, or
charge more for poorly managed networks?

convincing customers just might be a matter of saying the right things.  
for instance, "our services cost $Z in general, but if we find that you
manage your network well (some quantification), you pay only $Z-z (and
optionally, if you manage it very poorly, you pay $Z+z')."

	-- ratul

ps:  since i don't run networks myself, all of this may be something that is
obviously asinine.  would be great if someone was to point out if that is
the case, and why.



> Ratul Mahajan <ratul@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > i have related question to ron's (a bit hypothetical but interesting
> > nonetheless).
> > 
> > if isps charged for bgp announcements, would the number of announcements
> > that shouldn't be made (e.g., those due to configuration errors and poor
> > operational practices) go down?
> > 
> > 	-- ratul
> 
> 
> they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky'
> networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would
> not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations?  some nerve you have)
> it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be
> able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking.  i know i am having
> a very difficult time convincing management that our network needs some
> help - although after several recent, fairly successful attacks, they are
> starting to listen.
> 
> joshua
> 
> 
> > 
> > --------------
> > 
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Ron da Silva wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Some ISPs charge for actual bits carried (peak usage, actual count,
> > > whatever) in addition to or instead of per port/circuit charges.
> > > 
> > > Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer
> > > advertises?
> > > 
> > > 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?
> > > 
> > > -ron
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> "Walk with me through the Universe,
>  And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
>  Feast the eyes of your Soul,
>  On the Love that abounds.
>  In all places at once, seemingly endless,
>  Like your own existence."
>      - Stephen Hawking -
> 
> 





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.