On 22 Jan 2008, at 17:30, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
Hmm, who gets paid? It sounds like your hinting around a telco-type
reciprocal payment model (correct me if I'm wrong). Do I pay my
upstreams who in turn pay there upstreams and so on and so on? Or,
is there some central,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Andy Davidson wrote:
I think that charging for deaggregation of PA is hard to imagine. I
think charging for PI as a model may have been worthy of consideration
several years ago, but since we're only months away from entire product
lines of deployed edge kit nolonger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
People pay the RIRs.
The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators.
...
according to http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html for 2007 and
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/2006_audited_financials.pdf
for 2006 and
On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:24, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes:
People pay the RIRs.
The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators.
...
according to http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
for 2007 and
On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:14 PM, David Barak wrote:
Wouldn#39;t a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/
msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be
offloaded?
The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per
prefix is zero until you need to
On Jan 21, 2008 10:28 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there really any point in trying to put a $ figure on each route?
Jon,
Emphatically Yes!
Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
If we can determine the cost to announce a prefix then we could
develop a market-based solution to the problem... instead of
suppressing the prefix count, we
The problem with William's calculation is that he is claiming the
_only_ difference between X Y is prefix count. (He said this,
more than once.)
The only meaningful difference between X Y for the purposes of this
discussion _is_ prefix count.
He is dead wrong.
No, he's quite right.
William Herrin wrote:
Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
This is a Really Bad Thing on so many levels, but absent a viable
market-based solution to the problem, authority-based rationing is
Hello Bill:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:55 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and
terminology]
On Jan 21, 2008 10:28 PM, Jon
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote:
Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
If by artificially suppress, you mean anyone who wants it can't just fill
out a form and be handed a portable
On Jan 22, 2008 1:58 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giving absolutely anyone who wants it PI space would make things much
worse...so I wouldn't call that artificial supression. It's more like
keeping the model sustainable.
Jon,
Its kinda like gas in the 70's. There wasn't enough to
Joe
How many E1 customers can I plug into that device? You can take a cross section
on this issue at various points.
Think of the huge (sub RSP8) 7500 estates still in production, GSR Engine 5,
7609 RSP720 and Flexwan1 and I think the early Juniper boxes - that can cope
with todays size of
For example, the Cisco 3750G has all of features except for the
ability to hold 300k+ prefixes. Per CDW, the 48-port version costs
$10k, so the difference (ergo cost attributable to prefix count) is
$40k-$10k=$30k, or 75%.
Unfortunately, I have to run real packets through a real
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose
for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/
hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and
then we can substitute it into
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose
for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/
hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and
then we can substitute it
Wouldn#39;t a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/msfc2 and a
2851, and assume that the routing computation could be offloaded?
The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per prefix is zero
until you need to change eigenstate, where there#39;s a big cost, and then
On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If using the 7600/3bxl as the cost basis of the upgrade, you might as
well compare it to the 6500/7600/sup2 or sup3b. Either of these would
likely be what people buying the 3bxls are upgrading from, in some cases
just because of DFZ
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote:
Hmm. Well, the secondary market is flooded with sup2's right now, with
the card at sub-$1k prices and with a 6500+sup2 in the $5k range.
There isn't really a comparable availability of the sup720-3bxl
although eBay does have a few listed in the $12k
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:48 AM, Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, what
actually is the automatic, free, right to PI ? Every other network
in the world pays the cost when someone
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers
suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in
the DFZ (whether PI, PA or TE)
Hi,
Out of curiosity was the reasoning also to charge the PA who are
deagregating?
To restate there are 113,220 extra routes smaller than RIR minimums out
of the /24:126,450 in the table. The today reality seems to be that
113K of that 126K is probably being caused by existing networks
On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough
numbers
suggested that the attributable economic cost
Ben,
I believe you are correct that PA deaggregation is a huge problem, but
some of that could be corporate multi-homing. (I don't know for
certain whether it is greater or less than providers just being
ninnies.) Lots of companies get a /24 from one upstream and announce
it to two or
Hi Patrick,
I agree, if anything I am advocating a spanking of those in the clueless
category, thus reducing the table size so that up to 110K more PI space
and corporate multi homing can occur without increasing the table
further than today. Seems like a quick gain in flexibility and
On Jan 21, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Ben Butler wrote:
Or maybe... we will run out of corporates first! Which would have
to be
the best of outcomes, everyone multihomed how wants/needs plus a
manageable route table without having run out of IPs or AS numbers.
As Internet connectivity becomes
On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There was some related work on ARIN PPML last
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per
year
No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost
analysis is easy to calculate:
Your calculation is in error.
Entry level DFZ router: $40,000
But before we go too far down this road, everyone here should realize
that new PI space and PA deaggregation WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
Many corporations paying for Internet access will NOT be tied to a
single provider. Period. Trying to tell them you are too small, you
should only
Bill
I think your approach has some merits as a measuring stick but more stufy on
this is absolutely needed.
Given what I've experienced recently I think the cost per prefix is greatly
undervalued. It is actually a capacity/step change model that almost equates to
the same model used for
On Jan 20, 2008 1:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per
year
No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost
analysis is easy to
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The difference is much, much, much greater than that. Can the switch
do ACLs? Policy routing? SFlow with the same sampling rate? Same
number of BGP session?
Is there some alternate piece of cheap hardware that supports the DFZ
prefix
Delivering BGP solutions for end users is starting to get very expensive
particularly for those networks with lots of smaller pops, I think some effort
to look at how this might be better delivered without access boxes needing to
know the entire routing table esp in light of IPV6
Regards,
On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote:
Perhaps your definition of entry level DFZ router differs from mine.
I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline
for an entry level DFZ router.
A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of
RAM.
Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote:
Perhaps your definition of entry level DFZ router differs from mine.
I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline
for an entry level DFZ router.
A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take
On Jan 20, 2008 5:10 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we take out the proper attribution for the cost delta out of the
equation and the equipment is still not considered equal, I submit
your idea of proper attribution is, well, not proper.
Patrick,
So at this point, the
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 08:20:36PM -0500, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote:
Perhaps your definition of entry level DFZ router differs from mine.
I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline
for an entry level
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote:
A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do
the job at an extremely low price point.
Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traffic through it, but the
same concept does still apply.
I dunno, the *NIXes seem
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I
claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was
attributable to its ability to carry the needed prefix count.
I didn't ask you to justify what you
On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I
claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was
attributable to its ability to
I'm sure they will make it work but there a long list of issues using PCs as
routers that still applies capex goes to opex.
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Chadd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 January 2008 02:23
To: Jeff McAdams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cost per
41 matches
Mail list logo
