On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The RIRs pay the Tier 1s to all run PTRs, using fees charged to people who > get EID space from them*. More people using LISP, more traffic, more fees, > more PTRs.
The RIRs would likely use the NRO as their vehicle so that there's one central authority. But even if it was possible to get past the appearance of a money-grab by the megacorps, sorting out the payment dynamics would be a public policy nightmare of the first order. > The Tier 1s decide that the cost of deploying PTRs is less than the cost of > upgrading routers to handle the routing table growth that will happen if > LISP doesn't get deployed widely. That rather goes against human nature. > I once knew a colo shop that ran an IRC server specifically because the > traffic from the near-constant DDoS attacks (which IRC servers naturally > attract). The nature of the content biz is that they naturally send far > more than they receive; _any_ inbound traffic they can attract is good > because it helps balance their peering ratios, which makes other networks > more willing to peer with them, which in turn saves them money on transit. As crazy as it sounds, this is probably the most realistic scenario I've heard for deploying a LISP PTR: a small edge organization deploys it to adjust some completely unrelated traffic factor. Perhaps they even use it to justify peering in the first place: we know we'd normally come in shy of your qualifications Mr. Tier1 but if you add us as a peer at your convenient data center, we'll take care of this whole LISP PTR thing for you. Its a hell of a thing to hang a critical-path item on. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> -- 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
