|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [Re: the cost of carrying routes]
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Joshua Smith wrote: > they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky' > networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would > not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations? some nerve you have) > it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be > able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking. but i do pay for mistakes i make in other industries -- i pay for late credit card payments and for parking where i should not. and these fines keep me on my feet, and i try to blunder less often. why are running networks different? whats the incentive today to not make mistakes while running a network, especially mistakes those that don't hurt yourself much? there is only some amount of social pressure i think. wouldn't configuration errors go down if providers/peers were to charge less for well-managed networks, or charge more for poorly managed networks? convincing customers just might be a matter of saying the right things. for instance, "our services cost $Z in general, but if we find that you manage your network well (some quantification), you pay only $Z-z (and optionally, if you manage it very poorly, you pay $Z+z')." -- ratul ps: since i don't run networks myself, all of this may be something that is obviously asinine. would be great if someone was to point out if that is the case, and why. > Ratul Mahajan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > i have related question to ron's (a bit hypothetical but interesting > > nonetheless). > > > > if isps charged for bgp announcements, would the number of announcements > > that shouldn't be made (e.g., those due to configuration errors and poor > > operational practices) go down? > > > > -- ratul > > > they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky' > networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would > not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations? some nerve you have) > it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be > able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking. i know i am having > a very difficult time convincing management that our network needs some > help - although after several recent, fairly successful attacks, they are > starting to listen. > > joshua > > > > > > -------------- > > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Ron da Silva wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Some ISPs charge for actual bits carried (peak usage, actual count, > > > whatever) in addition to or instead of per port/circuit charges. > > > > > > Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer > > > advertises? > > > > > > If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24) > > > that were not aggregatable by you as their upstream ISP, would you > > > answer the above question differently? > > > > > > -ron > > > > > > > > > "Walk with me through the Universe, > And along the way see how all of us are Connected. > Feast the eyes of your Soul, > On the Love that abounds. > In all places at once, seemingly endless, > Like your own existence." > - Stephen Hawking - > >
|