[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
I would have to disagree with the description below.
Dino Farinacci wrote:
Have you thought more about this now, and can you say something about it
on the list?
It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. Providers
will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They typically don't want
to say no. The more traffic they attract the more peering they can get.
And the business opportunities start from there.
Dino
When geographic addressing (for v6, or even for v4) was proposed, one of
the big issues, brought forward by the providers, was that it would
require the provider to accept traffic for any customer in the
geographic region, and deliver it. This was unacceptable. It costs
money to have infrastructure to handle packets. And no one was / is
paying for that infrastructure.
This seems to me to be exactly the same issue as for PTRs as proposed.
There may be a way to deploy PTRs that gets them paid for, but I don't
know what it is.
Ignoring economic issues is a recipe for failure. If no one can afford
to deploy the solution if it catches on, then they will avoid doing so.
(Yes, anyone can afford PTRs in the early stage. That's not the
question.)
And no, operators don't want to attract traffic. They may want peering
relationships (not all want them.) As Peter sarcastically but
accurately put it at the mike, they want to be paid for traffic, but
they don't actually want the traffic.
Yours,
Joel
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg