> But when it comes to deployment analysis, ignoring the question of who > pays, and why, is just not going to work. We don't need (don't want, > and can't) to mandate a business model. I would hope that a sensible > recommendation allows for multiple business models. But if we can not > even imagine one that works, then it fails.
Well, I agreed right up until the end. That this group
can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't exist (I'm
not advocating ignoring all of this, mind you, but I did
want to make leave open the possiblity that there might
be ideas we haven't yet collectively thought of).
> And with regard to wanting more traffic, operators only want more
> traffic if they are going to get paid for it.
Core operators don't really get paid for traffic with
their peers (other than indirectly through their transit
customers) . That's the point.
> That does suggest a path for deployment of PTRs. If they are
> deployed by folks at the who are paid for transit on a volume
> basis, and who do not pay for transit, then
> there may be enough incentives to pay for the extra cost of the traffic.
Possibly. I'm really not arguing that point.
> But for most ISPs (who get paid for traffic and pay for traffic), and
> particularly for ISPs who send and receive most traffic over either free
> peerings or pay for transit) it would be difficult. (Such ISPs could at
> least provide PTRs for their own customers if they wished, once there
> was some reason to do so.)
Sure.
> The basic pain point to avoid is dragging in traffic, which does not
> have money attached, and then having to deliver it a way that doesn't
> have money attached. Bandwidth and routers are not free.
B/W in a colo might close to free (mod the cost of router
ports; but those costs are falling quickly as well; the
"circuits" in these cases are basically just
cross-connects).
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
