[166003] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Sep 30 19:41:47 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJvB4tnvrXiYr-vYZ2D5gGDqLFJc1mKouY8MxtP2zHrywEBNCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:41:07 -0300
To: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I was lazy in most of the adaptation, but I think it serves a
> good starting point for market based suggestions to the route slot
> problem.
>=20
> Your post advocates a
>=20
> (X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
>=20
> approach to fighting spam^H^H^H^H route deaggregation. Your idea will
> not work. Here is why it won't work.=20
> ...
There's actually no new technology involved, and you're overlooking the =
fact=20
that there already _is_ market operating when it comes to routing table =
slots -=20
try asking your ISP if they'll accept and propagate more specifics and =
your
answer is going based on imputed worth to them as a customer... you =
just=20
have no visibility into their assessment of your value, nor any way to =
make
the judgement yourself and pay accordingly.
FYI,
/John
