Internet core scale and market-based address allocation

Mon May 12 18:43:03 UTC 2003

> The statement; "an advertisement affects all members of the system equally"
> is false.  As you point out, sprint (at the time) was able to announce 
> 192.0.0.0/3, which clearly changed how they saw more specific annoucements.
> 
> I guess my point is, peering is a bilateral agreement between two parties
> to exchange packets.  part of that agreement is or should include provisions
> for determining what prefixes are sourced by each party and what are
> the expectations for re-announcing those prefixes to other parties. 
> 
> Those agreements/negotiations are -BILATERAL- and only affect the consenting
> parties.  Anything else is either sloppiness or laziness. 
> 
> --bill

Ok, so it appears there will never be a solution.

1) Filtering leads to blackholes
2) There was pushback on automatic aggregation, as well as a present lack of
feature for configurable automatic aggregation
3) Direct compensation by those who deaggregate to those who accept their
routes has problems, not the least of which is lack of support from those
who don't feel that nth-order parties are being affected by having the routes
in their bgp table.
4) Compensation along existing relationships only goes upwards, with peers
being zero-sum amongst themselves (and other end-users get nothing, since no
money flows back down the chain). This, of course, only serves to encourage
deaggregation, since providers can add another revenue stream where they
might have previously discouraged people from deaggregating.

Maybe there will be some effort to solve the problem at another time.
Until then, I'm done with this thread.