|
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
That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason. This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site, with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations. Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way. Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$) required to upgrade backbone routers. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Randy Bush > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM > To: Tony Li > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop > > > > > 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! > > randy >
|