[75799] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Wed Nov 24 15:58:52 2004
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Steven M. Bellovin'" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>,
"'Margaret Wasserman'" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:58:15 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20041124201242.3CE691AEC6@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> ...
> The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
> some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
> areas. What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
> points, rather than following today's practices?
It doesn't require POPs per se, but that might be the simplest
implementation. It does require some form of peering agreement for a service
region which could be implemented with traditional transit arrangements. The
incentive question is still open though. One incentive would be the
trade-off against a routing swamp, but by itself that is probably not
enough. Another incentive might be to stave off the recurring threat that
the ITU/Governments could impose worse approaches. If I had an answer to the
incentive question it would probably be easier to make progress.
Tony
