RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason.
This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking
at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to
go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site,
with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than
that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and
cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load
geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a
multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations.
Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way.

Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client
would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you
think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already
established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$)
required to upgrade backbone routers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
>
>
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for
> > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
>
> thanks geoff. :-)
>
> and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8
> disaster?  ahhh,  when they tried to announce those 50k /24s,
> the check
> would have bounced!
>
> randy