[168619] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Updated ARIN allocation information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 31 18:15:50 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140131212956.GC9822@hezmatt.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:10:56 -0800
To: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
>> better utilization. It would be nice if there was a way to fairly=20=
>> "settle up" for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the=20
>> routing table, as this would provide some proportionate =
backpressure=20
>> on growth, would create incentives for deaggregate cleanup, etc. =20=
>> We don't have such a system, so it falls to each ISP to decide what=20=
>> route is worth accepting based on type and the offering peer's=20
>> business relationship...
>=20
> I almost hesitate to mention this, just in case I put ideas into some
> beancounter's head, but it seems to me that the cost model of carrying
> packets isn't that different to carrying routes. In both cases, =
practically
> everyone is acting as a middleman, and money flows hither and yon and
> (presumably) balances out in the end, with everyone having their costs
> covered with a little left over for the shareholders.
Meh, sort of=85
>=20
> Imagine one of the big players saying, "we're going to charge you $X =
per
> route you send to us" (just like transit agreements that state, "we =
will
> charge you $X/GB of traffic"), or "your contract allows you to send us =
N
> routes" (just like, "your contract allows you to send us N Gb of =
traffic").=20
> About 15 minutes later everyone else would start doing it, to recoup =
the
> costs of sending routes to that provider. Peering would be considered =
not
> only if the volume of traffic was mutually advantageous, but also if =
the
> routes exchanged were mutually advantageous.
That=92s the optimistic outcome. The pessimistic outcome is that they =
get
rapidly depeered by everyone unwilling to pay $X/GB and then start =
losing
customers because their customers can no longer reach anyone else=92s
customers through them.
The reality probably lies somewhere in between. I suspect whoever =
chooses
to conduct this little experiment first should be prepared for =
substantial pain.
YMMV.
Owen
