On 3/26/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > i disagree with Criticism 1 of strategy E (let economics suppress growth). > you say that it needs a central authority system whereby money is > transferreed from ISPs announcing prefixes to ISPs running core > routers. i think that only pairwise interactions are needed ie just > between 2 ISPs that are connected.
Hi Philip, You'd have to negotiate with too many different parties to carry your prefixes. Having your ISP negotiate with it's neighbors such that it's neighbors will carry the negotiations forward to their neighbors yields precisely the system we have today, which brings us full circle to the problem we're trying to solve. On the other hand, it doesn't require a central authority, only a central clearinghouse in which all participation is optional and the participants set the rules of their own participation. I posited such a system in a moderate amount of detail on the NANOG list some time last year. Basically, you go to the clearinghouse and post your rates for various types of carriage of routing slots. Then you search everybody else's posted rates according to the criteria that you need in order to get the connectivity you want, and for each of the route announcements you make, you instruct the clearinghouse that you are purchasing the package of ISPs and rates that you specified in the search. Let me ground that with an example: I have 199.33.224.0/23 multihomed on the Internet. It's for my hobbies. Today that consumes a routing slot on every backbone router on the Internet. Maybe it's enough to authorize Verizon Business to announce 199.0.0.0/8 and then for me to make arrangements with Verizon Business, each ISP in the AS chain from me to Verizon Business and all ISPs who do business within the mid-atlantic states to carry my /23 route. That's still hundreds of entities, far too many to contact and negotiate with by hand. But with a clearinghouse to facilitate the negotiation and payment process, I could have full Internet connectivity while consuming routing slots in less than a thousand organizations instead of some thirty thousand worldwide. That would lower the real-world impact from the more than $6k per slot per year today to maybe a couple hundred dollars -- which I could easily afford to pay. > something on the lines of the second criticism seems ok, although >"giving up a solution that genuinely enables users" seems rather > provocative /vague [sorry, no text suggestion at the moment] The long version of that statement went something like this: If we're resource-constrained so that we can really only have a few hundred thousand routing slots in the Internet then the Domino's Pizza franchise down the street can't be multihomed with two ISPs. There just aren't enough routing slots to give them away. Over time, the scarcity of those routing slots will make them more and more valuable to the point where I can't afford to keep my basement multihomed either. This does not empower me as an individual; quite the opposite, I'm obstructed from consuming the resource for something as trite as my personal hobbies. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
