[ppml] Provider Independence???

[Charles Scott]

Michael:
  Working through this, I guess this means that there needs to be
"exchange points" everywhere, even in rural areas. If not, then the policy
needs to account for the "closest exchange point", and in cases where
providers don't, or can't, agree to exchange traffic, then the closest
common point would have to aggrigate the the announcement. But where might
that be? In an otherwise amorphous network, that will be difficult to
define.
  Also, how then do you propose to handle situtations where there is a 
great disparity in backbone bandwidth between providers. Unless the route 
costs are announced differently for each providers customers the least 
well connected provider will choke, and doing so breaks the model.
  Just don't see how this works unless there's some V6 magic that can 
solve this.

Chuck



On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> So the business case is clear, as it was back in the 
> early 90's. Everybody needs to carry competitor's 
> traffic in order to create the "network effect" which
> makes the network valuable to customers. And any
> imbalances are worked out in peering and transit agreements.
> 
> In fact, I think the real leaders in this will
> not be the ISPs but the exchange points, especially
> the larger operations like Equinix. If geo addressing
> is accepted in v6, then this allows for the v6 network
> to be built as a network of exchange points. I believe
> that this will provide better resiliency and seperacy
> than v6 networks and that, in the end, will drive the
> mass migration to v6 networks.
> 
> --Michael Dillon