Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

Howard C. Berkowitz hcb at
Fri Dec 3 15:22:27 UTC 1999

>> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for
>> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
>>thanks geoff. :-)
>>and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8
>>disaster?  ahhh,  when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check
>>would have bounced!
>When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if 
>there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it 
>should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising.  Does 
>the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so 
>What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an 
>additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will 
>accept charges for this long prefix?"  Providers would generate path 
>filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue, 
>but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been 
>registered, filters wouldn't have passed it.
>Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually 
>settling the charges.
>Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up 
>routers just to collect advertising charges.  My hunch would be that 
>squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an 
>AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets 
>registry requirements.

More information about the NANOG mailing list