Re: Nanog mentioned on BBC news website

[Zartash Uzmi <zartash () gmail com>]

<snipped>
> > > How many of you pass packets without getting paid?
> >
> > in the case of intervening entities, it is true that they have no link to
> > the sender or receiver.  my packets from office to home can traverse at 3
> > or more networks that are not paid by me, or my company.
>
> If I pay you to send my packets and you pay bob to send my packets
> then I have paid bob to send my packets. Transitive property of
> payment. ;-)


Yes, the transitive property prevails but there are constraints: imagine if
Bob were not there to take this "relatively small" payment!

Thus if I pay you to send my packets and you pay Bob to send those packets
-- then indirectly I have paid Bob an amount which is much less compared to
what you would charge me if you had to "build the Bob" yourself -- I am sure
you would pass on the costs to me, the end user, especially if there is no
such thing as unpaid volunteerism :)

The paradox is that the existence of Bob lowers the cost to an end user --
there is some such thing that can be classified as unpaid volunteerism...
and yes, being the Bobs, the NANOGers are exhibiting this unpaid
volunteerism!


> 'Couse bob doesn't pay claire anything but denise pays claire to
> receive packets for denise, my packets are intended for denise and bob
> and claire have a peering agreement in which they agree to swap
> already-paid traffic directly rather than both paying ed to do it for
> them.
>
> So it ain't free and at each step there is a contractual obligation to
> at least one of the sender or receiver.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004