Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

Jeremy Porter jerry at fc.net
Fri Dec 3 22:09:41 UTC 1999


Who exactly would these operators pay?  one check per asn?
Who is a backbone, etc, etc.  Great fun if you are a lawyer
I suppose.  Really I think most of the operators are too
busy building their networks to worry about how to give 
more money to lawyers and accountants.

I believe there will be a BOF on "micro" allocations at the
next Nanog meeting, I would be interesting in seeing
the parties that benifit from this, to come up with a proposal
that can determine fairly and with simple metrics
determines who gets one.

This is not exactly a new problem, the ARIN advisory council
has been looking at it for 2 years, and no one has yet been
able to come up with a policy that network providers, registries
and end users could live with.


In message <013601bf3db2$8714e5f0$ecaf6cc7 at lvrmr.mhsc.com>, "Roeland M.J. Meye
r" writes:
>
>That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason.
>This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking
>at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to
>go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site,
>with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than
>that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and
>cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load
>geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a
>multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations.
>Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way.
>
>Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client
>would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you
>think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already
>established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$)
>required to upgrade backbone routers.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
>> Randy Bush
>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM
>> To: Tony Li
>> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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!
>>
>> randy
>>
>
>

--- jerry at fc.net





More information about the NANOG mailing list