> On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:35:35AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Is the last paragraph of 4.1 an IETF consensus position on how operators >>> might charge one another? It would be good to find a way to word this >>> that look more like statements of fact and less like charging advice. >> >> darn hard as there are no facts there and it is first class lawyer >> bait. > > Indeed. > > It might be better to remove this part: > > "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the > unexpected traffic flows opposes the peering agreement. In this case, > an operator could account the amount of traffic that has been subject to > the unexpected flows, using traffic measurement protocols such as IPFIX, > and charge the peer for that traffic. That is, the operator can claim > that it has been a provider of that peer for the traffic that transited > between the two ASes." > > Instead something like: > > "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the > unexpected traffic flows violates a contractual agreement between the > two networks." > > And just leave it at that.
I support Job’s proposed improvement wholeheartedly.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
