[26062] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Fri Dec 3 10:25:53 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210101b46d90a1ee41@[168.143.1.215]>
In-Reply-To: <v04210100b46d89f65c43@[168.143.1.215]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:22:27 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for
>> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
>>
>>thanks geoff. :-)
>>
>>and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8
>>disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check
>>would have bounced!
>>
>>randy
>
>
>When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if
>there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it
>should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising. Does
>the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so
>real-time?
>
>What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an
>additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will
>accept charges for this long prefix?" Providers would generate path
>filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue,
>but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been
>registered, filters wouldn't have passed it.
>
>Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually
>settling the charges.
>
>Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up
>routers just to collect advertising charges. My hunch would be that
>squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an
>AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets
>registry requirements.
