North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Email peering (Was: Economics of SPAM [Was: Micorsoft's SenderIDAuthentication......?]

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Thu Jun 16 14:06:58 2005

Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [email protected] wrote:

The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
model, with only a few big actors.
I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. However,
in my earlier message I quite clearly described a model that allows
for millions of independent email servers organized in roughly
3 levels of hierarchy and I described how it could be done so
that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
You mean like ucbvax?  (If you don't know what that means, you have no
business talking about Internet e-mail.)

Seriously, the mess you're proposing was already done.  It didn't scale.
I think the salient point is that BGP itself does not and would not scale to the same level of demand SMTP peering agreements would need.

Currently 160k prefixes and 16bit ASNs -- while in and of itself stretching many operators scaliability limits -- come nowhere close to millions of domain names, mailsystems, mail orgs, mail users and pieces of mail.

Aggregation is currently failing for BGP, there is no rational basis to assume it could even begin to make traction for SMTP.

Its a pipe dream.