RE: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation

["David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>]

> Assuming peers are equal, their number of announcements are likely to
> approximate each other with a zero-sum. However, the customers of these
> peers are still contributing to my resource usage, as well as my
> customer's usage. Should I pay my customer for someone else's
> deaggregation?
> Certainly my customer is being affected by someone else's customer's
> wanton deaggregation.
>
> The only way this could possibly work is direct billing to those consuming
> the resources by everyone who's resources are being consumed across the
> entire network.

        When I buy a hamburger from Burger King, I just pay for the hamburger.
Burger King needs to get beef and pays for the beef using the money they got
from me for the hamburger. No problem.

        If something changes, I eat more hamburgers or beef costs more, they simply
adjust the prices they charge and pay. There is no need for me to ever
contact the beef producer directly.

        Similarly with routing, if joeISP's paid each of his upstreams 5 cents for
excess routes and had 4 of them, Ihed simply charge his customers 20 cents a
route. Why would my customers have to pay my upstreams?

        If joeISP's providers need to pay janeISP 10 cents a route to hear joeISP's
routes, then joeISP's providers will bill him. It's far more efficient for
the money to travel where the contracts already are. This is why I pay one
price at Burger King and they pay whoever they have to to get the beef,
employees, rent a store, and so on. It makes no sense for me to contract for
those things individually.

        If you don't want to hear someone else's routes unless they pay you,
nothing currently forces you to hear them. You can consider the incremental
value of those routes against the incremental cost and hear them or filter
them, as many people do now. If you want to bill them, their upstreams, or
your provider for those routes, nothing stops you from doing so.

        I believe that if people follow the existing rules, in the vast majority of
distant cases, the benefits of hearing the route already exceed the cost of
hearing the route. This is why the Internet currently works. So why should
somebody pay to give you something that's worth something to you?

        The people breaking the rules are a problem. But the mechanism to enforce
the rules isn't routing settlements.

        DS