Hi Michael, You wrote:
> I believe you have made my point for me -- this is technically feasible > with BGP, but probably not economically feasible. I would say that while it is technically feasible for anyone who runs a DFZ router to charge the operators of neighbouring routers for every update they make, that it is difficult to imagine this being deployed widely enough to curtail whatever might be judged as excessive updates by some edge networks. I described some barriers to this charging idea being feasible in a business sense, and no-doubt there are other barriers I didn't anticipate. Geoff Huston's sterling efforts in this field indicate that the business arrangements would indeed be tortuous: http://www.potaroo.net/drafts/old/draft-bert-kyoto-protocol-00.html http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php Also, even if this happened, it would make only a marginal difference to the routing scaling problem - we need a way of providing provider independent addresses to millions of networks, which is not made possible simply by reducing "excessive" update rates. > As I understand it, you argue that a similar payment system *will* be > economically feasible under Ivip. It seems you claim this only because > Ivip is designed from the ground up to require this. I haven't tried to list every reason why I think Ivip can and should work this way. This discussion is a good way of exploring these matters. I will take it up in another thread. - Robin -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg