size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
Daniel Senie
dts at senie.com
Tue Nov 30 05:44:48 UTC 2004
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
>Tony Li wrote:
>
>>If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
>>decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
>>balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you
>>would get to a point where people would make some more rational decisions
>>that didn't pollute the global table.
>
>Now there's a thought, and a pretty darned good one. But, where would the
>money go? Upstream(s)?
>It would certainly encourage more forethought into advertisements and
>aggregation. But it leaves a lot of room for the economics to click.
If we're going to entertain a settlement-based approach, why stop there? We
should add settlements to traffic, so the ISPs of end users pay content
providers for the content, rather than the present system where content
providers and end users all pay the folks in the middle (who still seem
unable to make any money).
As Tony noted elsewhere in his note, the Internet doesn't have a central
authority to impose the fees. It's a cooperative environment. We all
advertise routes that we need, and hope others will take them. Just like we
all filter traffic entering our networks at our borders so everyone else
won't have to deal with spoofed traffic injected elsewhere (what? do
something that helps the community as a whole?). Keeping the Internet
functional is a community, cooperative effort. The fee Tony proposes likely
will just result in only the larger companies being able to connect to the
Internet, and would put a lot of smaller companies out of business. But
that'd be best for the Internet, perhaps?
More information about the NANOG
mailing list