Chinese bgp metering story
tme at americafree.tv
Fri Dec 18 13:31:36 CST 2009
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I
>> see tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't
>> have a clue. What is the substance of the proposal?
> The report seemed a reasonably accurate account of what went on in
>> But what is all this about "is the ITU interested in changing BGP"?
>> If the word "metering" makes any sense in context, BGP doesn't
>> meter anything.
> The Chinese delegation presented a dozen pages of formulae involving
> 20+ variables, infinite sums, and other mathematical goodies.
> Wowing the audience I guess. The whole way through "using BGP" was
> mentioned - in the sense of pulling data from, and adding data to
> BGP for the purposes of evaluating these formulae. It was clear
> that BGP would be used - and modified if need be - to achieve this.
> Mixing billing with the reachability information signalled through
> BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Is this 12+ page presentation available anywhere ?
> Interesting to note was that nowhere was the intent of all this
> mentioned, which is presumably to calculate the "value" each and
> every party's traffic traversing a link generates, and to apportion
> "costs" accordingly.
> Misguided, nonsensical, and unworkable ideas often gain traction.
> It's important that this one doesn't.
More information about the NANOG