nanog mailing list archives
Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6
From: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:44:48 -0500
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
Tony Li wrote:If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you would get to a point where people would make some more rational decisions that didn't pollute the global table.Now there's a thought, and a pretty darned good one. But, where would the money go? Upstream(s)? It would certainly encourage more forethought into advertisements and aggregation. But it leaves a lot of room for the economics to click.
If we're going to entertain a settlement-based approach, why stop there? We should add settlements to traffic, so the ISPs of end users pay content providers for the content, rather than the present system where content providers and end users all pay the folks in the middle (who still seem unable to make any money).
As Tony noted elsewhere in his note, the Internet doesn't have a central authority to impose the fees. It's a cooperative environment. We all advertise routes that we need, and hope others will take them. Just like we all filter traffic entering our networks at our borders so everyone else won't have to deal with spoofed traffic injected elsewhere (what? do something that helps the community as a whole?). Keeping the Internet functional is a community, cooperative effort. The fee Tony proposes likely will just result in only the larger companies being able to connect to the Internet, and would put a lot of smaller companies out of business. But that'd be best for the Internet, perhaps?
Current thread:
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI, (continued)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Tony Li (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Robert E . Seastrom (Nov 29)
- RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Scott Morris (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeff Kell (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Daniel Senie (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 29)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Hank Nussbacher (Nov 30)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)