There are only 2 technical solutions, NATs or PTRs. They can solve
the
problem. If you choose something else that you think makes business
sense it could not even come close to solving the problem.
Let's first worry about solving the technical problem. Or else we
don't have to worry about any business models.
I'm sorry but I don't think this is acceptable. Deployability and
incentives have been a key issue from day one in this work. We really
need to have a solution that the relevant players want to deploy. That
is as important as the technical solution. We cannot fail either in
the
technical solution or the business incentives of the design. I don't
think we should postpone discussion of the incentives; its an integral
and necessary part of the solution. Just like mapping and
encapsulation
are both needed in the technical solution; encapsulation without the
mapping function isn't going to be very useful.
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.
Ok, this is interesting. Not quite as concrete and clear-cut as I had
hoped, but a start. What do others think of this? Is there a way for
us
to evaluate whether this is a sufficient incentive?