[52768] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: the cost of carrying routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Youse)
Mon Oct 14 17:18:57 2002
From: Charles Youse <cyouse@register.com>
To: 'Jeff S Wheeler' <jsw@five-elements.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:14:07 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I think you're confusing commercial peering agreements with
providing customers the ability to advertise their routes via BGP.
Two different issues.
C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:jsw@five-elements.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:11 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: ron@aol.net
Subject: Re: the cost of carrying routes
Ron,
Many carriers require that you advertise a certain minimum number of
routes to them over your peering sessions, or they will not peer with
you. This suggests that those carriers see routes carried as a point of
value, rather than or in addition to one of cost. I have seen 5,000
routes as a minimum used by more than one transit-less carrier.
Is this really an operational value perception at these carriers, or is
it simply a means of creating a barrier-to-peering? Are fewer, shorter
prefixes seen as more valuable than longer ones, e.g. swamp /24s? Is a
University or other entity with a legacy /16 more or less valuable as a
peer than a growing ISP with a few /20s, and presumably more eyeballs
and/or content behind them?
--
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@five-elements.com>
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:47, Ron da Silva wrote:
*snip*
> Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer
> advertises?
>
> If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24)
> that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you
> answer the above question differently?
