[120384] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Chinese bgp metering story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Fri Dec 18 13:58:12 2009
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3B15EFF7-795B-4FF9-9D43-8F522F66E6C0@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:57:22 -0500
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
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 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>=20
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>=20
>> Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of =
precisely what is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want?
>=20
> Really.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Depending on objectives, I would expect that this means that China =
wants to look at routers (which run BGP), and
>=20
> (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.
>=20
> It would be (d) that the reporter might seriously want to worry about.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
Or using BGP to carry charging information, so that ISPs could use that =
in their policies? Or charging end-to-end, rather than for transit?
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
