[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> True, but in the various discussions I've seen of this idea, the natural 

> conclusion seems to be that each geographical area would have an IX that 
all 
> ISPs using the PI block would be required to connect to, and each ISP 
would 
> advertise only the aggregate to their transit providers.

The various geographical or geo-topological addressing models
that have been proposed don't MANDATE that an IX must be
established in any particular area. It is true that establishing
an IX is a logical way to deal with geo addressing, but it
could also be done with a local mesh of private interconnects
as well.

>  It appears 
> settlements would be required for traffic coming in on one ISP's links 
and 
> headed to another ISP's customers; upstream traffic would be handled as 
it 
> is today.

Again, it is not clear whether or not settlements would be required.
I suspect that in some regions, geo addressing will simply not
be used because operators in that region can't resolve settlement
issues. In other areas they will be used without any settlements,
probably areas where IXes and route servers are the norm for 
ISP interconnection. And in other areas, ISPs will find various
ways of dealing with settlements.

In no case does the geo addressing mandate these things. It is
merely an enabler for alternate architectures and alternate
interconnect models. It enhances the Internet ecosystem by providing
diversity and has a real chance at reducing pressure on the global
routing table by giving the long tail of small providers and 
multihomed organizations a way to solve their diversity problems
without consuming slots in everyone's routing table.

> This model effectively trades a BGP routing problem for a money routing 
> problem.  Given no significant improvements have been made to BGP for a 
long 
> time, perhaps it's time to let the bean-counters have their shot?

I agree that it is time for the technologists to stop hogging the
entire problem space of Internet routing. Technology is here to serve
the creativity of humans, not to restrict and direct that creativity.
Maybe it will be bean counters who solve this and maybe it will be
small business people, but let's give them the chance.

> I'm also wondering how many "tier 1" providers would be willing to 
> participate in such a model absent government regulations. 

Big companies are known for being dumb and slow to change. There is
no reason why tier 1 Internet providers should be exempt from this
rule. Having clueful employees on the payroll does not protect a 
company from the consequences of "size".

--Michael Dillon