RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>]

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> ...
> The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
> some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
> areas.  What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
> points, rather than following today's practices?

It doesn't require POPs per se, but that might be the simplest
implementation. It does require some form of peering agreement for a service
region which could be implemented with traditional transit arrangements. The
incentive question is still open though. One incentive would be the
trade-off against a routing swamp, but by itself that is probably not
enough. Another incentive might be to stave off the recurring threat that
the ITU/Governments could impose worse approaches. If I had an answer to the
incentive question it would probably be easier to make progress.

Tony