>No, this does not work. Looking at Europe, I know of several ISPs
>to which the shortest path from here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
>is via MAE-EAST; they either don't have external connectivity
>on the continent itself, or we have no provider willing to provide
>transit between here and their continental connectivity.
It would seem that given a free market these providers would find it
cheaper to connect locally than make two hops across the Atlantic. Even
if a few go the long way, I would think cost considerations would keep
the number of such providers down, and limit them to the East Coast of
the US. This would accomplish the same effect of limiting the number
of routers that would need to know this detail
It does not work that way; tariffs are weird beasts.
I can't be very specific without naming names which I do not
want to do without permission.
Realize that an ISP can be 'in business' if they hook up via
an US ISP; local connectivity is 'extra cost' the advantage of
which only becomes clear with reasonable traffic levels.
>There is a second, similar reason: assume that A and B each operate
>in the same area. They use different carriers for transit to MAE-EAST.
>Who of these is going to announce the aggregated announcement?
>If A does it, it pays for the transit for customers of B.
>If they both announce it, then they still pay for eachother's
Presumably MAE-EAST would know enough detail about who was connected to
A and B to make the right decision on transit carrier. If A and B were
far enough away from MAE-EAST then they would probably find it more
economic to make an interchange locally.
The mae-east boxes are the ones most in danger right now, so
your suggestion does not help as they would need to know this
amount of detail (read: no aggregation), and thus still need
to carry the routes we want to get rid of via Europe.
Said otherwise: if you would hear different parts of 'europe'
via UUnet, EUnet, Pipex, PSI and others, would you still know
how to aggregate these for use at MAE-EAST?
Walter, I do not want to offend you, but this has been hashed out
several times already. You may want to scan the archives of cidrd,
nanog and other lists.
PS: asp: I don't have records of the big-I discussion you refer to.
If it can be easily summarized, then that would make a good start
in making the FAQ happen.