Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]

Wed Oct 30 19:02:11 UTC 1996

You don't mean changing one MAC address in Gigaswitch configuration is a
bolder feat than swapping (failed) equipment, do you?

Dima

Deepak Jain writes:
> 
> Problem is that if hardware fails or is swapped out, MAC addresses change.
> 
> -Deepak.
> 
> On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Dima Volodin wrote:
> 
> > Isn't it possible to filter MAC addresses at Gigaswitches?
> > 
> > 
> > Dima
> > 
> > Paul Ferguson writes:
> > > 
> > > Apparently people are still missing the point. On a shared media
> > > exchange, there is nothing to preclude another entity from pointing
> > > default to you even if they are *not* peering with you [a.k.a. bit-dumping].
> > > 
> > > - paul
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At 11:15 AM 10/30/96 -0500, Pritish Shah wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >So far from what I have gathered, everyone is afraid of being used as a
> > > >transit point. There is a very simple solution available which I can't
> > > >figure out why people are not using. 
> > > >
> > > >Both peers charge each other for the bits being peered. So now if one
> > > >peer is being used as a transit point, then they get compensated for it. 
> > > >
> > > >Eg
> > > >
> > > >AAA               BBB
> > > >15443621 bits ->  15443621 bits
> > > >20000000 bits <-  20000000 bits
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Difference 4556379 bits additional sent from BBB to AAA
> > > >
> > > >Applying lets say 1 cent per  100 bit charge, AAA gets $455.64 from BBB
> > > >
> > > >Simple!!!!
> > > >
> > > >Now with this kind of peering arrangement, no one has to be worried about
> > > >being used as a transit point -- infact they will want to be used as a
> > > >transit point. 
> > > >
> > > >This will also allow medium sized ISPs to peer with each-other. 
> > > >
> > > >So here is my question -- why is this kind of arrangement not being used
> > > >anywhere???
> > > >
> > > >Pritish
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 