Re: Provider Independent addressing usage

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> I think a very important question is about whether or not exchanges are
>> part of the natural economically incented growth of the Internet.  What
>> we've seen in the US is that they made some sense for awhile, but that
>> private interconnect is drawing the traffic away.  One then has to
> Is this because the exchanges are unprofitable, they fail to scale, or is
> it due to concentration of ownership?

the exchanges are still there, the number of isps meeting at them has not
(yet?) declined significantly.  the *traffic* *proportion* has declined,
likely because the cost for providers to use private interconnect has
fallen with the price of circuits, and private interconnects are more
easily managed.  i guess this might be your "fail to scale" point.

> It seems that exchanges are of greater benefit when there are many ISPs,
> while bilateral agreements are easier when there are fewer players.

uh, bi-lats are what are used at the public exchanges.  no one went for
mlpas.

>> The meta point here is that whatever architecture is selected, it needs
>> to operate with the natural economic order.  Otherwise carriers and
>> customers
> I'm not sure the the US marketplace is a very good example of "national
> economic order" due to legacy of monopoly telco.

then please remind us what country does not have the history (or present)
of monopoly telco?  this leaves us without lessons to follow, not a good
space.

randy