DNS pulling BGP routes?

Mon Oct 18 04:49:30 UTC 2021

On 10/16/21 15:44, Masataka Ohta wrote:

>
> What?

I will use my network for what I want my network to do for me. There are 
no international rules about why a network must be built. Provided that 
I am clear to those whom I want to connect to my network, I can do what 
I want with it and not be a bad actor.

> Unless they directly reach their end users, yes, of course.

So by your logic, a bank's internal network used to drive its ATM 
machines is not neutral because one cannot use that network for global 
IP Transit?

>
> The fundamental problem of networking is the last mile problem
> that access costs alot more than backbone.

Well, yes and no.

While it is true that one of the biggest problems of the Internet is the 
last mile, it is vital to not be forced into the mistake of 
classification. For some operators, the "last mile" is the biggest cost. 
For other networks, the "backbone" is the biggest cost.

You can't tell me that US$700 million being spent to build a submarine 
cable around a continent is something to scoff at.

For me, I don't want to hold myself back by classifying "access", 
"backbone", "metro", e.t.c. Your business model will determine what is 
costly to you, and what isn't.

>
> As such, long distance carriers may peer with access providers
> only when they are neutral or pay some of there revenue share
> to access providers.

Again, you are trying to keep the old Internet (and the classic 
telephone company model) alive in 2021. That is not how operators work 
anymore. There are networks that have neither a "backbone" nor an 
"access network" that do very well, and don't cause anyone else pain, 
because they are clear in what their model is.

>
> With your definition, as CDN providers with their own backbone are
> not "transit", they can not request access providers (and, ultimately,
> end users) peering without paying some as compensation for access
> network cost.
>
> Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders
> ignoring access costs.

Okay, so by your logic, "access providers" should pay CDN's for peering, 
because the CDN's have spent millions building submarine cables and data 
centres around the world to bring their service to the access providers. 
After all, why give the access providers a free ride either?

In case it's not clear, that last paragraph was sarcastic. It's 2021 - 
long distance, access, backbone, metro, e.t.c. Those are boxes that 
don't exist anymore. Let's not refuse the advancement of the model 
because we can't find a way to make it fit in our old box.

Mark.