As to the guiding economic principle(s) it is just nice to have. It will become obvious from the "correct" theory anyway and we can drop this subject completely if it helps to speed up the discussion.
Peter,
you have a number of important points. Thanks for sharing them. Your statement cited above, however, is one that I don't agree with. Consideration of economic principles is, IMVHO, important to arrive at the right theory. If we omit this, we risk ending up with the wrong theory which will eventually turn into a protocol that people are reluctant to deploy -- not for technical or backwards compatibility reasons, but for economic reasons. One example where, I believe, consideration of economics is due is the question of who should select the ingress link of an edge network (a related thread on this list). Letting the sender of a packet select the remote ingress link (by letting it select the destination transit address) would certainly be an approach that is technically viable, but it would be opposite to the economic view that the receiver, who pays for its ingress link, should be able to control which one is used. - Christian -- 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
