Indeed !!! I was being sarcastic, I was watching live the last IGF
meeting when by proxy ICANN's CEO got grilled with the question about
IPv6 address allocation.
Jorge
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to
break is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
That's OK with me if they're willing to let the IETF break the
monopoly on telephone number allocation.
R's,
John
Nobody here remembers ICAIS?
This is actually an old story/ambition, which started elsewhere, and not long after the the 1997-1998 "rebalancing" of ITU-mediated switched telecom settlements.
Two nuggets from the history books pasted in below.
Of course, just because it's not new doesn't mean that it's not newsworthy. As I recall, this issue precipitated a fairly titanic behind-the-scenes struggle last time around...
TV
..
modified if need be - to achieve this. Mixing billing with the reachability
information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Indeed not.. but it might offer one advantage, if it was mandatory
for any such tarrif/cost to be advertised there to be valid, and in
the form of an ancillary BGP route attribute, rather than buried in
some 500,000 page treaty that forces all ISPs to decipher it and
try to figure out what their liabilities are.
Mainly because it makes any tarrif very visible, and easily understood.
and offers an easy ability to automatically make decisions like
discard reachability information that has any billing labels or
"strings" attached to it, or has a cost greater than $X per million
packets listed for 'source'... and easily allows an ISP to replace
the next hop with null when a tarrif option has been listed, or use
only a route not subject to tarrif.
Thus treating as unroutable or permit routing around any transit that
would like to try to taint its routes by indicating tarrif to
peers. And thus also permitting the whole notion of 'IP tarrif'
to see a very quick death...
Otherwise, new router hardware could more easily provide suitable
counters and IPFIX data (with suitable changes to ip flow export
formats) to track the tarrifs due to all "tarrif payee IDs", or
whatever that would be.
Existing hardware does this today with NetFlow, et. al.
.. not only that, we've been doing this for a bloody long time in
internet years. About all that really matter is figuring out how
to engineer your network to allow for netflow based billing without
having subtle duplicate flows everywhere..
Adrian
(Ah, thinking about this stuff brings back memories, and I'm only 30..)
I concur. Such visibility is efficient and drives simplification and
automation from a data mining perspective, when analyzing accounting
information.
In such context, some care is required. Reachability information is
destination based. Mixing accounting (ie. NetFlow) and reachability
(ie. BGP) information is of good value for traffic delivered out of
a routing domain but not for traffic received, ie. reverse reachability
lookups can be a way although they are not truly deterministic due to
routing asymmetries; a mix of ingress measurements, lookup maps and
an export protocol supporting L2 information (ie. for same interface,
multiple peers scenarios) give way a better chance to resolve which
neighboring party is pulling which traffic into the observed domain.
Cheers,
Paolo
i am truely in awe how deeply the implications and alternatives have
been analysed. this is particularly impressive given the complete
absense of any facts about the alleged proposal.
randy
I think the whole brouhaha is the merely result of someone saying 'BGP-speaking routers' vs. saying 'peering/transit edge routers', combined with the notion of somehow cartelizing this on a national basis vs. the current individual network-to-network private/public basis.
Part of the thread just went more of general discussion about
mixing accounting/reachability information despite the original
subject label was retained.
Cheers,
Paolo
Paolo Lucente wrote:
..
modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good idea.Indeed not.. but it might offer one advantage, if it was mandatory
for any such tarrif/cost to be advertised there to be valid, and in
the form of an ancillary BGP route attribute, rather than buried in
some 500,000 page treaty that forces all ISPs to decipher it and
try to figure out what their liabilities are.Mainly because it makes any tarrif very visible, and easily understood.
and offers an easy ability to automatically make decisions like
discard reachability information that has any billing labels or
"strings" attached to it, or has a cost greater than $X per million
packets listed for 'source'... and easily allows an ISP to replace
the next hop with null when a tarrif option has been listed, or use
only a route not subject to tarrif.I concur. Such visibility is efficient and drives simplification and
automation from a data mining perspective, when analyzing accounting
information.In such context, some care is required. Reachability information is
destination based. Mixing accounting (ie. NetFlow) and reachability
(ie. BGP) information is of good value for traffic delivered out of
a routing domain but not for traffic received, ie. reverse reachability
lookups can be a way although they are not truly deterministic due to
routing asymmetries;
deliberate tunning for purposes of TE, use of default. will all
contribute to ingress path not resembling egress...
However, if they are after some consultancy time to write some useless documents then I will happily take their money.
However, if they are after some consultancy time to write some useless
documents then I will happily take their money.
i suspect their intelligence is far greater then your arrogance
randy