[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Christopher Morrow]

On 11/9/05, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> Thus spake "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com>
> >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> >> Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk

> > 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,

I'd be concerned, am concerned, about 'settlement' situations. Perhaps
its a misunderstanding of them on my part though :) I'd be concerned
that there are more than 2 parties involved in the conversation, and
potentially someone in the middle could bend traffic paths to
influence their business needs (putting competition out of business or
just censoring people?) Anyway, probably not a topic for this
conversation, just worrisome :) (knowing how evil bean counters can
be...)

> > if they have to pay for transit (settlement for inbound
> > traffic) but carriers get to charge at both ends of the
> > stream.
>
> OTOH, people with big upstream pipes, like hosters, could end up receiving
> huge settlement checks for inbound traffic on pipes that are today only
> filled in one direction.  I've seen no data to indicate that the net

If they charge lots of settlement, perhaps people won't send packets
their way? or will degrade performance intentionally? Or force that
traffic through a competitor to impale them on a higher cost link :(

> movement of money would be substantially different under this plan (or that
> it wouldn't, for that matter).
>
> > Is there evidence that this model provides a network
> > that is better, faster, or cheaper?
>
> It's arguably "better" and "faster" because local traffic stays local and
> inbound traffic takes the most direct route; at a macro level, both are good
> for the Internet.  Less long-haul traffic means transit prices should drop,
> leading to "cheaper".

it takes the most direct route assuming no funny monkey business with
routing... assuming people don't have capacity problems in region (or
at the IX) and don't force traffic on non-optimal paths.

>
> Also, by replacing PI-based multihoming with IX-based multihoming, there is
> less pressure on the DFZ, leading to cheaper routers, or at least

I am not sure that local/regional IXP proliferation is going to help
the DFZ folks all that much in the end. It may remove direct
connections and direct allocations from their tables. It would
essentially aggregate all customers in region behind one prefix.
Eventually the 'regional' IXP would have to become a County IXP then a
City IXP then Town IXP, proliferating the number of IXP's to a very
large number (how many towns exist in the USA alone? Does this really
drop the DFZ table that much?

Additionally, the DFZ folks now become the 'LD carrier' of the
Internet and since they don't have direct customers they arrange
'settlement' with the IXPs I suppose? I'm not sure this gets us to the
end goal either.

> less-frequent upgrades.  And multihoming, at least within one "area",
> becomes significantly cheaper and easier, which a lot of end sites would
> call "better".

How is a local IXP 'multihoming' me? it's getting me a connection to a
single 'carrier' with lots of bgp options... or I'm again confused. It
may get me more than one pipe to the IXP and more bgp options on each,
and now the IXP-truck-bomb is my failure scenario (and much easier I'd
think).

> > but I think having a single point of failure (nuke the IX) in
> > each geographical area sounds contrary to good
> > internetwork design.
>

<aol>me too</aol>

-Chris