> 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