Dino, > There are only 2 technical solutions, NATs or PTRs. They can solve the > problem. If you choose something else that you think makes business > sense it could not even come close to solving the problem. > > Let's first worry about solving the technical problem. Or else we > don't have to worry about any business models.
I'm sorry but I don't think this is acceptable. Deployability and incentives have been a key issue from day one in this work. We really need to have a solution that the relevant players want to deploy. That is as important as the technical solution. We cannot fail either in the technical solution or the business incentives of the design. I don't think we should postpone discussion of the incentives; its an integral and necessary part of the solution. Just like mapping and encapsulation are both needed in the technical solution; encapsulation without the mapping function isn't going to be very useful. >> Have you thought more about this now, and can you say something about it >> on the list? > > It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. Providers > will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They typically don't > want to say no. The more traffic they attract the more peering they > can get. And the business opportunities start from there. Ok, this is interesting. Not quite as concrete and clear-cut as I had hoped, but a start. What do others think of this? Is there a way for us to evaluate whether this is a sufficient incentive? Jari -- 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
