[136909] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sun Feb 6 12:32:44 2011
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D4ED71D.7020104@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:17 -0500
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing
> table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use
> of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of
> the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other
> participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per
> participant then it nets out to zero.
>
> Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and
> the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs.
One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates
backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities
receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table
slots.
Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on
consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying
additional routes.
/John
p.s. While I do believe there would be a net benefit, it also
should be noted that there is no apparent way to transition
to such a model in any case, i.e., it could have been done
that way from the beginning, but a large scale economic
reengineering effort at this point might be impossible.
