North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

  • From: Howard C. Berkowitz
  • Date: Fri Dec 03 10:26:05 1999

> Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for
> annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?

thanks geoff. :-)

and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8
disaster?  ahhh,  when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check
would have bounced!


When people talk about charging for announcements, it seems as if there is an assumption that any time a new announcement shows up, it should be advertised and a charge made for that advertising. Does the problem simplify, however, if the orientation isn't quite so real-time?

What if "problem" long route entries in routing registries had an additional, digitally signed, flag that said "the originator will accept charges for this long prefix?" Providers would generate path filters that permitted advertisements that would generate revenue, but not others. Since the deaggregated 129/8 would not have been registered, filters wouldn't have passed it.

Obviously, there has to be some mechanism, TBD, for actually settling the charges.

Also, we would need to guard against cybersquatters that set up routers just to collect advertising charges. My hunch would be that squatting is less a problem here, given the need to qualify for an AS and go through the capital expense of setting up an AS that meets registry requirements.