North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
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
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