[120382] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Chinese bgp metering story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Fri Dec 18 13:48:42 2009
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <467CC052-0B84-4C76-AF91-57A934EB50D3@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:47:39 -0800
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of
> precisely what is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want?
Really.
I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see
tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't have a
clue. What is the substance of the proposal?
Depending on objectives, I would expect that this means that China
wants to look at routers (which run BGP), and
(a) use IPFIX-or-something to measure traffic rates and charge for
trans-China transit,
(b) use interface statistics to measure traffic rates and charge for
trans-China transit,
(c) tax Chinese ISPs for transit services they provide, or maybe
(d) use IPFIX-or-something to map communication patterns.
It would be (d) that the reporter might seriously want to worry about.
But what is all this about "is the ITU interested in changing BGP"? If
the word "metering" makes any sense in context, BGP doesn't meter
anything.
