Couple of follow-ups in line, sorry for the delay.
Best wishes
phil
{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William
{ Herrin
{ Sent: 30 March 2009 03:38
{ To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
{ Cc: [email protected]
{ Subject: Re: [rrg] Comments on draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01
{
{ 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.
[phil] I don't think it's necessary to " carry the negotiations forward".
Negotiating with your neighbours is enough - they then negotiate with their
neighbours and so on. After all, when I buy apples I have a contract with the
greengrocer or supermarket; the greengrocer has a contract with a wholesaler;
the wholesaler has a contract with the farmer. No need for me to negotiate with
farmer or clearinghouses. I don't see why it would have to be different in the
rrg case.
{
{ 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.
[phil] maybe we have a philosophical difference here. it seems to me a good
architectural goal for a protocol to allow costs to be allocated to those that
cause them, without having to distort/break the protocol; enabling a party to
do what it wants for free regardless of its impact on other parties seems to me
a poor goal - or at least it is likely that (once the impact is economically
significant) the architecture will get distorted somehow.
{
{ 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
