Updated ARIN allocation information

Fri Jan 31 21:29:56 UTC 2014

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
>    better utilization.  It would be nice if there was a way to fairly 
>    "settle up" for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the 
>    routing table, as this would provide some proportionate backpressure 
>    on growth, would create incentives for deaggregate cleanup, etc.  
>    We don't have such a system, so it falls to each ISP to decide what 
>    route is worth accepting based on type and the offering peer's 
>    business relationship...

I almost hesitate to mention this, just in case I put ideas into some
beancounter's head, but it seems to me that the cost model of carrying
packets isn't that different to carrying routes.  In both cases, practically
everyone is acting as a middleman, and money flows hither and yon and
(presumably) balances out in the end, with everyone having their costs
covered with a little left over for the shareholders.

Imagine one of the big players saying, "we're going to charge you $X per
route you send to us" (just like transit agreements that state, "we will
charge you $X/GB of traffic"), or "your contract allows you to send us N
routes" (just like, "your contract allows you to send us N Gb of traffic"). 
About 15 minutes later everyone else would start doing it, to recoup the
costs of sending routes to that provider.  Peering would be considered not
only if the volume of traffic was mutually advantageous, but also if the
routes exchanged were mutually advantageous.

- Matt

-- 
"[the average computer user] has been served so poorly that he expects his
system to crash all the time, and we witness a massive worldwide
distribution of bug-ridden software for which we should be deeply ashamed."
		-- Edsger Dijkstra