North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: multi-homing fixes

  • From: Valdis.Kletnieks
  • Date: Wed Aug 29 01:59:42 2001

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:54:27 +1000, James Spenceley <[email protected]>  said:
> If US operators only want to accept prefixes for 'free' from networks that
> account for a percentage of their traffic, your in a position to effectively
> blackhole much of the developing nations Internet.
> Is access to a countries Internet more or less important than access to a
> route with a different bit length or traffic level ? 

I was going to ask which was more important to your users, access to or access to the Afganistani national network, until I realized
that probably only one of those actually has a prefix attached....

However, there *is* a point to this - it's probably more important to
the *inhabitants* of the developing nation than to the already developed
nation.  There's some 200 or 300 countries in the world, of which
there are probably only 40 or 50 that the US would notice a lack of
connectivity to.  On the other hand, the OTHER 150 to 250 countries
would be HEAVILY impacted by a lack of connectivity.

The implication of this is that if you're a provider of connectivity
to content *consumers*, your customers probably dont care, and you
probably don't either.  On the other hand, if your customers are
content *providers*, you should care - that's another 4 billion
pairs of eyeballs that haven't gotten fed up with banner ads,
pop-up ads, pop-under ads....

/Valdis (whos AS seems to be a provider not a consumer, based on