Chinese bgp metering story

Marshall Eubanks tme at
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  
> Kampala.
>> 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.
> Cheers,
> Jonny.

More information about the NANOG mailing list