[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Paul Vixie]

# > you're still basing assertions on a premise i've disputed, ...
# 
# The assertion is based on the fact that there are a limited number of fiber
# runs under the oceans.  Yes that number is more than 1, but it is not
# numbered in the thousands, and will continue to be limited over time due to
# costs.  There is no reason for a network in New York to know the gory
# details of the traffic engineering in Beijing, any more than the networks in
# Beijing need to know the details of local delivery in New York.

this is mind boggling.	 the routers aren't at the landing stations, tony!
and in some years, the only way to get IP from one part of europe to another
or from one part of asia to another or from one part of south america to
another was through new york or palo alto or miami.  there is a HUGE need for
the folks in beijing to be able to access and traverse the local IP market
in new york, and vice versa.  and in my view, this is a trend, one that will
accelerate and one that is good for the internet and for every user and
every provider of internet services.

# The entire concept of a global DFZ with detailed traffic engineering
# overlays has been about raising the bar to prevent entry by new players.

i hold the exact diametrically opposed view.  the global DFZ is the only
think preventing us from paying $10000/meg to one or three huge providers.

# That approach is not required for bit delivery to work.  Bit delivery is
# possible using transit providers interconnecting exchange based aggregates,
# and that would be no more brittle than what we currently have. 

that's soviet-style central planning thinking you've got going there.  yow!
sure, you could rebuild MILnet and maybe NSFnet or Internet-2 that way -- but
a global IP economy will be organic and unplannable.  paraphrasing padlipsky,
the territory is under no obligation whatsoever to conform to your map, sir!

# ... Allowing everyone to express their policy
# in the global view just adds to bloat. 

i don't like the bloat either.  we wouldn't need nearly as many prefixes if
our edge could be more dynamic.  (once again i lament the death of A6/DNAME.)

however, if the edge is to be static, it will be huge.  that's the game.

# > but we digress.
# 
# I agree with your goal, but recent WiFi efforts show that no matter how lame
# the deployments by industry are, as soon as a city steps up for the good of
# their citizens those lethargic providers will cry foul.

let 'em cry.  my money is on gavin.  though san francisco needs an internet
exchange, and IP providers applying for any kind of permit or license should
be required by the city to exchange local routes MLPA-style with other ISP's.
(why should i have to use a bicycle messenger rather than FTP to ensure that
my bits don't leave town on their way to someone else in the same city?  and
why should i have to pay the same rate for local delivery as long distance,
especially when transporting terrabytes per day?)

but we digress.

# I don't mean to act as if the boundaries are known.

well, but, you are.  acting that way, that is.