Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

[Randy Bush <randy () psg com>]

> > > Yes, the economics of routing are strange, and the lack of any real
> > > strictures in the routing tables are testament to the observation
> > > that despite more than two decades of tossing the idea around we've
> > > yet to find the equivalent of a "route deaggregation tax" or a
> > > "route advertisement tax" or any other mechanism that effectively
> > > turns the routing space into a form of market that imposes some
> > > economic constraints on the activity.
> >
> > among other things, i suspect that the shadow of telco settlements
> > makes us shy away from this.
>
> Agreed. It's all ugly!
>
> The shadow of telco settlement nonsense, the entire issue of route
> pull vs route push, and the spectre of any such payments morphing into
> a coerced money flow towards to the so-called tier 1 networks all make
> this untenable.
>
> The topic has been coming up pretty regularly every 2 years since
> about 1994 to my knowledge, and probably earlier, and has never
> managed to get anywhere useful.

so we are left with

  o name and shame, and we have seen how unsucsessful that has been.
    the polluters have no shame.

  o operational incentives.  peers' and general routing filters were the
    classic dis-incentive to deaggregate.  but the droids cave in the
    minute the geeks leave the room (ntt/verio caved within a month or
    two of my departure).

  o router hacks.  we have had tickets open for many years asking for
    knob variations on 'if it is covered (from same peer, from same
    origin, ...), drop it.'

none of which seem to move us forward.  i guess the lesson is that, as
long as we are well below moore, we just keep going down the slippery,
and damned expensive, slope.

randy