DNS pulling BGP routes?

Sabri Berisha sabri at cluecentral.net
Mon Oct 18 20:51:28 UTC 2021

----- On Oct 18, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com wrote:

> On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:

>> I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that
>> we're talking about.
>> My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly
>> so that users actually do have a way out and can vote with their feet. From
>> that perspective, the NBN model isn't that bad (not trying to start an NBN
>> flamewar here).

> I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint
> regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual
> daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be
> painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL is not "oh
> great, more customers for us!" but "oh great, let's do that too!".

That's the point where MBAs take over from engineering to squeeze every last
penny out of the customer. And that usually happens when a company gets large.

> Witness airlines and the race to the bottom with various fees -- and
> that's in a field where there is plenty of competition.

For the most part: yes. But, that's also where the success of Southwest comes
from. They generally don't take part in that kind of bovine manure.
> This is obviously complicated and one of the complications is QoS in the
> last mile. DOCSIS has a lot of QoS machinery so that MSO's could get CBR
> like flows for voice back in the day. I'm not sure whether this ever got
> deployed because as is often the case, brute force and ignorance (ie,
> make the wire faster) wins, mooting the need. Is there even a
> constructive use of QoS in the last mile these days that isn't niche?
> Maybe gaming? Would any sizable set of customers buy it if it were offered?

It's been a few years since I've worked for a residential service provider,
but to the best of my memory, congestion was rarely found in the last mile.
> If there isn't, a regulation that just says "don't cut deals to
> prioritize one traffic source at the expense of others" seems pretty
> reasonable, and probably reflects the status quo anyway.

But again, now you are interfering in how I operate my network. Let's say 
I have two options:

1. Accept one million from Netflix to prioritize their traffic and set my
residential internet pricing to $50;


2. Be subjected to government regulations that prohibit me from accepting
said funds and set my residential internet pricing to $100 to cover costs;

Isn't it up to me to make that decision? The government should not need to
have any say in this matter.

And note my careful wording, because in the current market, they do need to
have a say. My point is: the market should be open enough that if a sub
disagrees with their ISP's technical choices, they should be able to switch.

It's government regulation that makes that extremely difficult, if not 

But, I don't want to pollute the list any further and I've made my points
so I shall grant you the last word publically :)



More information about the NANOG mailing list