[43030] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Fri Sep 28 15:39:23 2001
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:36:52 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
"Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu,
Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1205260731.1001709412@[195.224.237.69]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0109281217190.27697-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean,
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
>> Sure, they filter, but they invite THEIR peers to filter them, as
>> well. I don't see any hypocracy in that.
>
> If filtering is "saving the Internet," why not practice what you preach?
>
> Its a bit like complaining about poluted rivers, but continuing to
> dump raw sewage into the river because that's what your customers
> pay you to do. And saying other water systems can filter the water
> if they don't like it.
This may be a more interesting analogy than you intended. Many of those (me
peronsally included) who advocate filtering, would be quite happy for a
'polluter pays' scheme, though pollution of the routing table this time. IE
if backbone A wants to send long prefixes to its provider B, then I fully
support some form of charge from B to A in order for them to accept that.
Kyoto protocol all over again :-) . This way, disaggregation would be
looked on as expensive, as opposed to 'morally bad'. There is much evidence
to suggest the free market is good at sorting things like this out.
Currently, however, we have misattribution of costs.
SMD suggested this a long time ago, for routes in general (i.e. not
just long ones). He's right (at least if measured over a long
enough time window :-p )
--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
