On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should summon up this thread by one more email from either side. > I'll hereby start so that you have the final word:-)
Fair enough. > There are many possible and well working business models. [...] And > sometimes business models change [...] This business model issue is > not a killer argument at all and we shouldn't bother about while > searching for a (clean-slate) solution. Beyond the basic question for a routing protocol (does it actually route packets from the source to the destination?) the issue of most critical importance is the manner in which it supports the economics which drive the Internet. The "desired" economic model for the Internet, the one that operators have been pushing and enhancing since the dawn of the commercial Internet, can be summarized as follows: 1. Maximize the ability to directly bill customers for resource consumption. 2. Maximize the resources available to sell. 3. Minimize the count and cost of overhead resources that aren't attributable to specific customers. We're here on RRG today because BGP falls short of this model in one important respect: The routing table itself is very expensive to maintain and operate yet those who consume it can't be directly billed for their use. For any of our solutions to proceed to implementation, we have to come closer to the desired economic model. We have to come enough closer than BGP does to merit the cost of change. Any solutions which stray further from the desired economic model than BGP does are simply non-starters. This includes Geoaggregation. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- 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
