[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking



> But when it comes to deployment analysis, ignoring the question of who  
> pays, and why, is just not going to work.  We don't need (don't want,  
> and can't) to mandate a business model.  I would hope that a sensible  
> recommendation allows for multiple business models.  But if we can not  
> even imagine one that works, then it fails.

	Well, I agreed right up until the end. That this group
	can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't exist (I'm
	not advocating ignoring all of this, mind you, but I did
	want to make leave open the possiblity that there might
	be ideas we haven't yet collectively thought of).

> And with regard to wanting more traffic, operators only want more  
> traffic if they are going to get paid for it.

	Core operators don't really get paid for traffic with
	their peers (other than indirectly through their transit
	customers) . That's the point. 

> That does suggest a path for deployment of PTRs.  If they are
> deployed by folks at the who are paid for transit on a volume
> basis, and who do not pay for transit, then   
> there may be enough incentives to pay for the extra cost of the traffic.

	Possibly. I'm really not arguing that point.

> But for most ISPs (who get paid for traffic and pay for traffic), and  
> particularly for ISPs who send and receive most traffic over either free  
> peerings or pay for transit) it would be difficult.  (Such ISPs could at  
> least provide PTRs for their own customers if they wished, once there  
> was some reason to do so.)

	Sure.

> The basic pain point to avoid is dragging in traffic, which does not  
> have money attached, and then having to deliver it a way that doesn't  
> have money attached.  Bandwidth and routers are not free.

	B/W in a colo might close to free (mod the cost of router
	ports; but those costs are falling quickly as well; the
	"circuits" in these cases are basically just
	cross-connects). 

	Dave

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature