Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: B

[owen () DeLong SJ CA US (Owen DeLong)]

> > > Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste
>
>
> I think everyone agrees that the above statement is true in today's Internet
> model, where customers are charged flat rates for their connections.  But if
> we change the peering model, why should we not change the model for
> charging customers?  If we do that, then settlements can work, and the
> problem of metrics for how to charge should become much easier...
>
> Take the aggregate traffic from A --> B, and from B--> A, and whoever receives
> more bits pays the other provider.   Say it is A that has to pay B, as B is a
> big
> content provider and A is a big dial ISP.  Now, if A charges $19.95/month flat
> rate to all of its dial users, A instantly loses.   But if A charges its dial
> customers
> based on the bits received, or time connected, perhaps it becomes more even.
Or, let's say A finds artificial ways to send more traffic to B to balance it
out so they get charged less.  Hmmm... I don't see any way changing the charging
model addresses that.

> Network A can't win in a settlement based peering relationship unless he passes
> the costs on to his customers, and at flat-rates, whether it is dial up or
> leased line,
Sure he can... He just has to change the traffic ratio.


> that is not happening.  So, charge the content provider for outbound *and*
> inbound
> traffic.  This can and should be subsidized by advertisers, as the more 'hits'
> that
> site generates, the more $$ you can charge.   (Of course, this only works when
> advertisers  are willing to  pay to be on your site, but if they aren't
> willing, either
> your site has content that doesn't have mass appeal or the advertiser doesn't
> want to be associated with your content.   For the former, you probably aren't
> getting enough hits to worry about usage based costs.  For the latter, find
> another
> advertiser or someone else to pay...) For the dialup user, charge him a lower
> fixed
> monthly cost of, say $5, but charge him for the traffic to and from him.
> What's the
> cost?  Whatever it takes to make money while remaining competitive!
I don't think that good content should have to succumb to advertising littering
it's pages in order to support itself.  I don't think that ftp.cs.berkeley.edu
should have to install ADs in the readme files so that you see an ad everytime
you go to download sendmail, as an example.  Get real.

> There are still problems with DOS based attacks, but those need to be resolved
> anyway.   As for writing 'fraudulant apps' that generate asymmetric flows to
> try to
> 'even out' the peering relationship,  it doesn't work anymore for creating flow
> in
> to your own network.  Your paying the other provider because they are sending
> you more traffic than you are sending them.  For the opposite direction, if you
> can write an app that sends more traffic out to the other network, you'll need
> a
> valid host to talk to.  I'm sure the other provider won't have one of their own
> machines doing that, so you'll need a customer of the other network to receive
> that traffic.  But now that they are charged for it, that won't happen.  (I'm
> sure
> someone out there can think of ways around this, but I imagine there are
> solutions to them.  If its fraudulent traffic, and you face serious fines and/or
> periods of time where you have to shut down your network, would you really
> take the chance?)
No you don't, you just need something inside one of the prefixes advertised to you.
In fact, it's easier to generate what you want to a host that doesn't respond.
No need to worry about the responses counteracting your intent.  I'm not sure how
you would distinguish fraudulent traffic to enforce such a provision.  Afterall,
it could look like a port scanner, or any number of other things.

Another question that evolves is how you measure this at the MAEs.

> Of course, the first ISP that starts to do usage-based charges may stand a good
> chance of losing many of their customers, so this would have to be Industry
> wide.  And
> the peering charges would have to be the same (or at least on the same order of
> magnitude) between all ISPs, or peering imbalances will quickly be created.
> Thus,
> there will most likely have to  be, at a minimum, an Independent Peering
> Council, or
> at worst, government regulation, to make this happen.  :-(
The worst would be if this did happen.  The proposal has _WAY_ too many holes
and sounds like exactly the kind of proposal that is why we all dread regulation
so much.

> DISCLAIMER:  I'm not advocating this solution, and it may or may not express
> the views of my employer.
>
> I should also state that I am doing my M.S. Thesis on "The Evolution of
> Peering."
> Any original ideas I see on nanog (or com-priv, where this discussion really
> should
> be) will be quoted as such!
Fair enough.

> Sean
> ___________________________________
> Sean Butler, CCIE #3897
> IBM Global Services -- OpenNet Support
> Phone:  8-631-9809,   813-523-7353
> Fax:        8-427-5475   813-878-5475
> Internet email:  sebutler () us ibm com

Owen