Re: Provider Independent addressing usage

[mcrietf@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (Michael Richardson)]

>>>>> "Randy" == Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> writes:
    mcr> It seems that exchanges are of greater benefit when there are many ISPs,
    mcr> while bilateral agreements are easier when there are fewer players.

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

  I realize that.

  I meant that the private circuits take actual work to arrange vs using the exchange.

  If two ISPs, who happen to have equipement located at an exchange decided
to pull a x-over cable between their two boxes, is this a public or private circuit?
  
    >>> The meta point here is that whatever architecture is selected, it needs
    >>> to operate with the natural economic order.  Otherwise carriers and
    >>> customers

    mcr> I'm not sure the the US marketplace is a very good example of "national
  (my typo should be "natural")
    mcr> economic order" due to legacy of monopoly telco.

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

  Practically none.
  So there is no "natural economic order" to learn from, is my point.

  This may be a situation where we will have to write a document aimed at the 
regulators before we can properly solve a technical problem. 

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [