Re: Chinese bgp metering story

> However, if they are after some consultancy time to write some useless > documents then I will happily take their money. i suspect their intelligence is far greater then your arrogance randy

RE: Chinese bgp metering story

: Chinese bgp metering story i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete absense of any facts about the alleged proposal. randy

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

Paolo Lucente wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote: >> .. >>> modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability >>> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good id

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:42:33PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have > been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete > absense of any facts about the alleged proposal. Part of the thread just went more of general di

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > this is particularly impressive given the complete absense of any facts > about the alleged proposal. I think the whole brouhaha is the merely result of someone saying 'BGP-speaking routers' vs. saying 'peering/transit edge routers', combined w

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete absense of any facts about the alleged proposal. randy

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote: > .. > > modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability > > information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea. > > Indeed not.. but

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > Existing hardware does this today with NetFlow, et. al. .. not only that, we've been doing this for a bloody long time in internet years. About all that really matter is figuring out how to engineer your network to allow for netflow based billing wit

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:09 AM, James Hess wrote: > Otherwise, new router hardware could more easily provide suitable counters > and IPFIX data (with suitable changes to ip flow export formats) to track the > tarrifs due to all "tarrif payee IDs", or whatever that would be. Existing hardware

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote: > On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote: .. > modified if need be - to achieve this.  Mixing billing with the reachability > information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea. Indeed not.. but it might offer one adva

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

Nobody here remembers ICAIS? This is actually an old story/ambition, which started elsewhere, and not long after the the 1997-1998 "rebalancing" of ITU-mediated switched telecom settlements. Two nuggets from the history books pasted in below. Of course, just because it's not new doesn't mea

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

>And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to >break is the monopoly of IP address allocation. That's OK with me if they're willing to let the IETF break the monopoly on telephone number allocation. R's, John

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: >> >> And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to break >> is the monopoly of IP address allocation. > > With all due respect, they don't want to break said monopoly, ass

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to break is the monopoly of IP address allocation. With all due respect, they don't want to break said monopoly, assuming one agrees that it is a monopoly (I think there's a lot

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

Why can't we carry price per "kilosegment" on BGP ? And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to break is the monopoly of IP address allocation. J

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

My sense is that the ITU has played with such ideas in the past, and the governments have for the most part found it in their interest to not screw with the Internet. Do you have any specific recommendations on how to keep that true? On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > > The decision on that will mostly be made in mid-March. > By whom? A working group of the ITU Council. > The RIRs aren't just going to say, "OK, ITU folks, it's all yours," heh. Indeed not. However, the RIRs don't have a voice in

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:49 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > The decision on that will mostly be made in mid-March. By whom? The RIRs aren't just going to say, "OK, ITU folks, it's all yours," heh. --- Roland Dobbins //

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > But what is all this about "is the ITU interested in changing BGP"? If the > word "metering" makes any sense in context, BGP doesn't meter anything. Neither the reporter nor the Chinese proponents nor the ITU seem to understand that making use o

RE: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Deepak Jain wrote: > ITU is already acknowledging that BGP isn't its baby, so it has nothing to say there. Yes, that was the successful (for us) outcome of the meeting, which would not have been the case had we not been prepared and had people there. Just to expl

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:26 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > "A proposal has been made, and is being studied, to use BGP routers to > collect traffic flow data, which could be used, by bilateral agreement, by > operators for billing purposes." Lots of 'BGP routers' are used to collect traffic flow data (

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Jonny Martin wrote: > Mixing billing with > the reachability information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem > like a good idea. This is done all the time via combinatorial BGP/NetFlow analysis, for peering/transit analysis reports, offnet/on-net billing dif

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote: On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't have a clue. What is the substance of the proposal? The repo

RE: Chinese bgp metering story

>From the BBC article quoted in the isoc-ny.org link: An ITU spokesman said: "The ITU has no plans to modify the BGP protocol, which is not an ITU-T standard. "A proposal has been made, and is being studied, to use BGP routers to collect traffic flow data, which could be used, by bilateral agre

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see tell me the reporter (in the story the blog points to) doesn't have a clue. What is the substance of the proposal? The report seemed a reasonably accurate account of what went

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

SIIA Chair Simon Tay on Clinton's Asia visit (Bloomberg, 20th Feb 2009): Steve Engel (Bloomberg): Speaking of provoking, where do you see Hillary bringing the tact in bringing the issues that Obama wants to raise to the Chinese in her trip this time. Yuan revaluation is one, and also of course hum

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On 18/12/2009 18:19, Joly MacFie wrote: > I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on > http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134 > > Please feel free to add comments there. I tried to read this article earlier today, but my lolwut meter exploded. It's not really clear whether the confusion in

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > >> Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of precisely what >> is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want? > > Really. > > I can read tea leaves with the be

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote: Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of precisely what is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want? Really. I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see tell me the reporter (in th

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Joly MacFie wrote: >> I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on >> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134 >> Please feel free to add comments there. > > If anyone has questions about this, the "invited experts" w

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

There is also a discussion of this going on on the IETF discuss list. Regards Marshall On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134 Please feel free to add comments there. -- ---

Re: Chinese bgp metering story

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Joly MacFie wrote: > I have posted sa comment on this from ISOC England on > http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=134 > Please feel free to add comments there. If anyone has questions about this, the "invited experts" who managed to wedge their feet in the door at t