On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 12:49:09PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> > > >> If you have a site which is providing content to a large part of the > >> Internet, it makes sense (in a system-wide analysis) to have the > >> routing support multi-homing for that site, because while everyone > >> pays part of the costs, everyone also benefits. > > > That makes sense, although in the current regime even in > > the case of a large multihomed content provider, the core > > (network) still bears the burden while the site gains the > > benefit. > > This doesn't make that much economic sense to me. I reason as follows: > > Assume there were no large content providers, just lots of small sites, each > making money. In that case, the network would have to carry as much overall > traffic, but somehow I don't think people would have this reaction 'oh, those > sites are getting something for free, and so the network providers should get > more money from them'. > > Yes, a large content provider does use lots of bandwidth - but it has to get > that bandwidth from someone (unless they own their own fiber everywhere). > > I tend to view this as a straight economic tussle - like that between a > manufacturer and a union. There's a pie (the income of the content provider), > and the network providers and the content providers are fighting over it. > > I might further observe that it's only this way because the network business > has no pie to fight over. If Google/etc were barely breaking even, and the > network providers were raking in money hand over fist, I bet you'd see the > exact reverse of this argument: 'oh, those network guys are only making money > because of our content, so we deserve a share of their pie'. > > I am not impressed by either argument. > > Last I heard, the telephone companies weren't asking for a share of the > profits of mail-order companies who take their orders over the phone, either. > > Right now, network services are not 'properly' valued by the market (in part > because there was overspending on capital investments like fiber). The same > thing happens in other markets too (e.g. commercial buildings). Eventually > things will return to a reasonable mean. > > > > In some sense everyone benefits (as you say), but that cost/benefit > > tradeoff isn't rationalized (i.e., there's no economy that assigns > > resources accordingly). > > I'm not sure I quite understand this? Are you saying that that costs aren't > perfectly assigned, that some people are getting something for free? > Basically, its all about routing state. If I'm a multihomed site and I inject a PI prefix, then I gain the benefit but the core networks bears the cost (state). So in that sense the cost/benefit is misaligned. Dave
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature