RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is at odds with reality

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

Hi Tony,

> settlements in an IP environment do not truly reflect usage

it should. it is changing slowly where operators introduce usage based billing more broadly

> (who pays: Google, or the guy that did the search?).

the amount of traffice sent is what matters. If the Google server has sent tons of bits than Google has to compensate the provider(s). The settlement between Google and the searching guy is between two of them.

> direction, do you do settlements of routes?  If so, who
> pays and why?  If
> the sender, then what if the sender's path is not
> selected as best?

If the speed of the delivery matters to the sender and/or the reciever than speedy routes clearly have a chance to become a differentiator for ISPs. The competition here will take care of pricing.

Thank you,

Peter

--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

> From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
> Subject: RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is at odds with reality
> To: pesherb@yahoo.com, "'Robin Whittle'" <rw@firstpr.com.au>, "'Routing Research Group'" <rrg@psg.com>
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 5:21 PM
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Note that the analogy is poor, at best.  It's been
> shown multiple times that
> settlements in an IP environment do not truly reflect usage
> (who pays:
> Google, or the guy that did the search?).  Moreover, the
> data plane is
> significantly different than the control plane.  If you
> take it in that
> direction, do you do settlements of routes?  If so, who
> pays and why?  If
> the sender, then what if the sender's path is not
> selected as best?  If the
> receiver, then what encourages folks to aggregate?
> 
> Tony
>  
> 
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb@yahoo.com] 
> |Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:01 PM
> |To: 'Robin Whittle'; 'Routing Research
> Group'; tony.li@tony.li
> |Subject: RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is
> at 
> |odds with reality
> |
> |a brilliant mechanism for driving such cooperation,
> |
> |it is the monetary settlement based on the amount of the 
> |exchanged traffic where the originator pays for the
> delivery. 
> |nothing really new here
> |
> |thanks,
> |
> |Peter
> |
> |
> |--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
> wrote:
> |
> |> From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
> |> Subject: RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based
> routing is 
> |at odds with reality
> |> To: "'Robin Whittle'"
> <rw@firstpr.com.au>, "'Routing 
> |Research Group'" <rrg@psg.com>
> |> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 11:32 AM
> |> Hi Robin,
> |> 
> |> 
> |> |If your position is that a scalable routing and
> addressing
> |> solution
> |> |based on geographic aggregation of address space can
> only
> |> be widely
> |> |adopted if most or all adoptors (or at least most or
> all
> |> initial
> |> |adoptors) do so out of altruism, then I would say
> this
> |> sort of
> |> |solution is a non-starter.
> |> 
> |> 
> |> No Robin.  My point was an academic one: if it was
> possible
> |> to get some
> |> degree of multi-lateral cooperation from providers,
> then
> |> geo-aggregation at
> |> a very coarse level with relaxed rules is
> _technically_
> |> feasible.  This has
> |> been under consideration since we first introduced
> CIDR and
> |> it got ejected
> |> even then, when there were far more providers in the
> room.
> |> 
> |> Moreover, it's not pure altruism: it's a
> coalition
> |> or co-operative
> |> agreement.  Altruism would be pure sacrafice for no
> return.
> |>  This clearly
> |> has a return, it's just not tightly coupled to
> the
> |> investment.
> |> 
> |> Note that this same type of mechanism is also going
> to be
> |> necessary to deal
> |> with some of the non-architectural deaggregation
> that's
> |> seen today with
> |> traffic engineering generated more specifics.
> |> 
> |> Now, it's been a very long time since the I*TF
> had the
> |> kind of critical mass
> |> of operators necessary to begin that type of
> agreement, and
> |> it's been even
> |> longer since we've seen folks that had the kind
> of
> |> vision to collaborate for
> |> the long term good.  More's the pity.
> |> 
> |> That said, I'm actually welcome to see
> geo-aggregation
> |> discussed.  It's
> |> certainly part of the technical solution space and if
> |> someone, as part of
> |> the conversation, has a brilliant mechanism for
> driving
> |> such cooperation,
> |> then it's all worthwhile.  While we're at it,
> we
> |> can also toss in creating a
> |> market for routing slots.  Same set of issues.
> |> 
> |> Tony
> |> 
> |> 
> |> --
> |> 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
> |
> |
> |      
> |


      

--
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