Chinese bgp metering story
mysidia at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 22:09:32 CST 2009
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin <jonny at pch.net> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> modified if need be - to achieve this. Mixing billing with the reachability
> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Indeed not.. but it might offer one advantage, if it was mandatory
for any such tarrif/cost to be advertised there to be valid, and in
the form of an ancillary BGP route attribute, rather than buried in
some 500,000 page treaty that forces all ISPs to decipher it and
try to figure out what their liabilities are.
Mainly because it makes any tarrif very visible, and easily understood.
and offers an easy ability to automatically make decisions like
discard reachability information that has any billing labels or
"strings" attached to it, or has a cost greater than $X per million
packets listed for 'source'... and easily allows an ISP to replace
the next hop with null when a tarrif option has been listed, or use
only a route not subject to tarrif.
Thus treating as unroutable or permit routing around any transit that
would like to try to taint its routes by indicating tarrif to
peers. And thus also permitting the whole notion of 'IP tarrif'
to see a very quick death...
Otherwise, new router hardware could more easily provide suitable
counters and IPFIX data (with suitable changes to ip flow export
formats) to track the tarrifs due to all "tarrif payee IDs", or
whatever that would be.
More information about the NANOG