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

Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Tue Nov 30 00:58:02 2004 
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:


Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you would get to a point where people would make some more rational decisions that didn't pollute the global table.
Now there's a thought, and a pretty darned good one. But, where would the money go? Upstream(s)?
It would certainly encourage more forethought into advertisements and aggregation. But it leaves a lot of room for the economics to click.
If we're going to entertain a settlement-based approach, why stop there? We should add settlements to traffic, so the ISPs of end users pay content providers for the content, rather than the present system where content providers and end users all pay the folks in the middle (who still seem unable to make any money).

As Tony noted elsewhere in his note, the Internet doesn't have a central authority to impose the fees. It's a cooperative environment. We all advertise routes that we need, and hope others will take them. Just like we all filter traffic entering our networks at our borders so everyone else won't have to deal with spoofed traffic injected elsewhere (what? do something that helps the community as a whole?). Keeping the Internet functional is a community, cooperative effort. The fee Tony proposes likely will just result in only the larger companies being able to connect to the Internet, and would put a lot of smaller companies out of business. But that'd be best for the Internet, perhaps?