North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Sat Jun 02 14:37:16 2007

must be the weekend, i'm posting to [email protected]

> > i wish that the community had the means to do revenue sharing with such
> > folks.  carrying someone else's TE routes is a global cost for a point
> > benefit.
> There are lessons to be learned from the CO2 emissions trade industry. I 
> don't think it's really any different since the economics work exactly 
> the same.

since a network operator has the means to refuse TE routes (for example,
ISC still filters on the old smd/asp boundaries) and only hear the covering
routes (if any), it's not quite the same as CO2.  very similar though, since
filtering the routes doesn't make us immune to the collateral damage of other
people trying to install these routes, being unable to, having to buy bigger
routers, going out of business, becoming uncompetitive, and so on.  in CO2
land, the economics lead to a "pollution credits" model, which would have to
be agreed by treaty and then enforced (neither of which is likely to happen),
and i'm hoping for a better outcome wrt TE routes in the DFZ.
Paul Vixie