[ppml] geo addressing (was: Re: 2005-1 or its logical successor)

[Howard, W. Lee]

> > 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 :(
> 
> Since all IX members would be advertising the same aggregate to their 
> upstreams, 

Is that enforceable?

> inbound traffic necessarily flows to the member closest to the 
> source.  

Assuming everyone hot-potatos.  For certain values of
"closest," which may vary depending on local routing policy.

> All one can do is _prevent_ traffic from reaching you by not 
> advertising, prepending, etc. but why would they do that when 
> they stand to 
> make money for every bit of yours that comes in and avoid 
> paying you for 
> every bit of theirs they get directly?

I'm having pronoun trouble.  "You" is a web hoster/content
provider?  "They" and "one" are an ISP?

"Closest" may not equal "cheapest."  Even if there's a flat
settlement rate tarriffed by the FCC (or whatnot), circuit
or equipment costs may vary.



> > 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.
> 
> Assuming the settlement rate is comparable to or higher than 
> the current 
> transit rate (something nobody has addressed so far), everyone has a 
> financial incentive to build as much inbound capacity and 
> attract as much 
> inbound traffic as possible.

Okay. . . then it's the carriers who get shafted, because
most of their traffic is outbound.  And they pass the savings
on to you, the consumer.  

Even if the financial incentives are properly formed, as Chris
points out, people may act contrary to their short-term 
interest for the benefit of long-term interest.

> > 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?
> 
> There are ~3000 counties in the US; while all of them 
> certainly don't need 
> their own IX, even if we did something that nutty 3000 routes 
> for the US is 
> a clear improvement over the status quo.  If we restricted 
> "areas" to, say, 
> the so-called NFL cities or something similar, we'd have 
> another two orders 
> of magnitude reduction in routes.

Agreed, that's the potential benefit, if it works.
Is it possible to achieve some of this benefit with only
partial deployment?  In other words, if we manage to get
a policy out of this, and IXen start sprouting like grass,
ARIN has only created opportunity--would there be
voluntary adoption, and if so, would partial adoption be
good?


> The way I've seen it described, there's nothing preventing 
> any ISP from 
> selling transit to any other or to end sites; the only thing 
> is that to use 
> the IX-based addresses in a given area, they'd need to peer 
> at the IX (and 
> join the settlement scheme).
> 
> So, your promising local ISP could join the IX, sell a customer a 
> connection, 

I'm confused again.  "Connection" meaning "BGP neighborship
including full table (transit)" or meaning "circuit with
transit."  ?

> buy transit from UUNET et al, and nothing much 
> would change 
> except that (a) your customer could multihome (or rehome) to 
> any other IX 
> member without any new routes in the DFZ, (b) you would get 
> settlement check 
> for traffic coming in on your transit pipes headed for other 
> IX members, and 
> (c) you'd send settlement checks for traffic coming in on 
> other IX members' 
> transit pipes headed for your customers.

"Nothing much" where the value of nothing is sufficiently high.


> 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 


Lee