[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:12 AM
> To: cja at daydream.com; Tony Hain
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
> 

> 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.  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.

What's the transition plan, if these IXs don't exist now?
Are these IXs required by law, by policy, or something else?
Are they privately-owned monopolies, or publicly-owned
monopolies?

> 
> 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 hear a lot of support for settlements from telcos,
some from governments, and little from network people.
It effectively drives hosting companies out of business,
if they have to pay for transit (settlement for inbound
traffic) but carriers get to charge at both ends of the
stream.

Is there evidence that this model provides a network 
that is better, faster, or cheaper?

If economists set addressing policy, can network engineers
set monetary policy?
 
> I'm also wondering how many "tier 1" providers would be willing to 
> participate in such a model absent government regulations.  
> Why would UUNET 
> want to do something that makes it easier for their customers 
> to multihome 
> (or rehome) to "tier 2/3" providers or even another "tier 1"? 
>  Would we see 
> significant benefits with just the smaller ISPs participating?

Because those providers are inferior.  The phrase used
to be, "What's good for the Internet is good for UUNET."
That's tongue-in-cheek, of course.  However, the same 
company owns UUNET and MAE-*, so there might be some
interest, but I think having a single point of failure
(nuke the IX) in each geographical area sounds contrary
to good internetwork design.

Lee

 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
> CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
> K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin