[97136] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Sat Jun 2 14:36:31 2007
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date: 02 Jun 2007 18:35:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4661B270.4070109@he.iki.fi>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
must be the weekend, i'm posting to nanog@.
> > i wish that the community had the means to do revenue sharing with such
> > folks. carrying someone else's TE routes is a global cost for a point
> > benefit.
>
> There are lessons to be learned from the CO2 emissions trade industry. I
> don't think it's really any different since the economics work exactly
> the same.
since a network operator has the means to refuse TE routes (for example,
ISC still filters on the old smd/asp boundaries) and only hear the covering
routes (if any), it's not quite the same as CO2. very similar though, since
filtering the routes doesn't make us immune to the collateral damage of other
people trying to install these routes, being unable to, having to buy bigger
routers, going out of business, becoming uncompetitive, and so on. in CO2
land, the economics lead to a "pollution credits" model, which would have to
be agreed by treaty and then enforced (neither of which is likely to happen),
and i'm hoping for a better outcome wrt TE routes in the DFZ.
--
Paul Vixie
