|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation
> > > Assuming peers are equal, their number of announcements are likely to > > > approximate each other with a zero-sum. However, the > > > customers of these > > > peers are still contributing to my resource usage, as well as my > > > customer's usage. Should I pay my customer for someone else's > > > deaggregation? > > > Certainly my customer is being affected by someone else's customer's > > > wanton deaggregation. > > > The only way this could possibly work is direct billing to > > > those consuming > > > the resources by everyone who's resources are being consumed > > > across the > > > entire network. > > When I buy a hamburger from Burger King, I just pay for the > > hamburger. > > Burger King needs to get beef and pays for the beef using the > > money they got > > from me for the hamburger. No problem. > This is a poor analogy, since there is nothing McDonald's > customers do which > affects Burger King's customers in the same way as JoeISP's customer's > deaggregation affects JaneISP's customers. Actually, that's not true. Burger King and McDonald's compete for beef suppliers. By buying burgers at McDonald's, I increase McDonald's buying power, making it harder for Burger King to buy beef. They also compete in labor markets and other ways. Nobody can compel you to listen to a routing advertisement that you don't feel it's in your best interests to hear. You can, if you wish, demand a payment from them for hearing your announcements. In any event, your counter-analogy is bad because Burger King and McDonald's don't have a contractual relationship with each other, even indirectly, that could account for these costs. Rest assured, if they had one, it would. > Route advertisements do not fit any existing model, since an advertisement > affects all members of the system equally, no matter how far away they are > from the advertisement. The whole system is consensual and supported by contract. Each contract takes into account the entire universe on each side of the contract. Nobody can compel anyone to do anything they don't wish to do. If I impose costs on you, I can only do it through the system of contracts and agreements. So each agreement can and should take into account the affect my costs have on each piece of the system. If your uplink paid by announcement, they'd charge you by announcement. If you paid by announcement, you'd charge your customers by announcement. If you didn't feel an announcement was worth the cost, you wouldn't hear it. There is no commons. Everything is owned and used pursuant to contractual agreement. DS
|