Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

[Jeremy Porter <jerry () fc net>]

Who exactly would these operators pay?  one check per asn?
Who is a backbone, etc, etc.  Great fun if you are a lawyer
I suppose.  Really I think most of the operators are too
busy building their networks to worry about how to give 
more money to lawyers and accountants.

I believe there will be a BOF on "micro" allocations at the
next Nanog meeting, I would be interesting in seeing
the parties that benifit from this, to come up with a proposal
that can determine fairly and with simple metrics
determines who gets one.

This is not exactly a new problem, the ARIN advisory council
has been looking at it for 2 years, and no one has yet been
able to come up with a policy that network providers, registries
and end users could live with.


In message <013601bf3db2$8714e5f0$ecaf6cc7 () lvrmr mhsc com>, "Roeland M.J. Meye
r" writes:
> 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

--- jerry () fc net