[120391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Chinese bgp metering story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Fri Dec 18 14:32:31 2009
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Jonny Martin <jonny@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <3D5304EB-5A64-4D0E-83BB-332F8B5FE903@pch.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:31:36 -0500
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 2:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The report seemed a reasonably accurate account of what went on in
> Kampala.
>
>> 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.
>
> The Chinese delegation presented a dozen pages of formulae involving
> 20+ variables, infinite sums, and other mathematical goodies.
> Wowing the audience I guess. The whole way through "using BGP" was
> mentioned - in the sense of pulling data from, and adding data to
> BGP for the purposes of evaluating these formulae. It was clear
> that BGP would be used - and modified if need be - to achieve this.
> Mixing billing with the reachability information signalled through
> BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Is this 12+ page presentation available anywhere ?
Regards
Marshall
>
> Interesting to note was that nowhere was the intent of all this
> mentioned, which is presumably to calculate the "value" each and
> every party's traffic traversing a link generates, and to apportion
> "costs" accordingly.
>
> Misguided, nonsensical, and unworkable ideas often gain traction.
> It's important that this one doesn't.
>
> Cheers,
> Jonny.
>
>
>
