Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

Vadim replying to me wrote:

> Actually the distribution problem is pretty simple.
>
> In your forwarding table add a per-prefix cost.
>
> The cost is expressed in terms of tokens.
>
> The tokens are deducted from a token bucket.
>
> The number of tokens in the bucket (depth and refresh-rate) is
> arrived at by some engineering or sales process.
>
> This polices MEDs nicely.

Hm. Aggregation breaks that scheme nicely. Absense of
aggregation breaks routing nicely.

Remember Yakov's route push and route pull model.

In the system above, when you have multiple connections to
someone sending you only very short (aggregate) prefixes,
you have an incentive to do a route pull in order to
optimize your routing. That is, you can acquire information about
the other network to help you choose the cheapest entry point.

Moreover, the route pull does not have to be very dynamic
in order to increase (as opposed to maximize) the number of
packets you are able to send into the network.

  Sean.

P.S.: There is also a direct trade-off -- choosing the most expensive
      entry point merely minimizes the number of packets one will be
      able to inject into the other network for any given token-bucket-
      refresh-rate. Rather than choose cheaper entry points, one could
      simply choose to buy a faster refresh-rate.

Sean M. Doran wrote:

Remember Yakov's route push and route pull model.

These are pretty much equivalent - if both parties follow
them and have similar mix of packet sources and sinks.

My take is that the simplest combination of "neutral
ground" public IXPs and no-transit backbones contains an
interesting economical negative feedback effectively
preventing market monopolization. (I.e. the bigger
backbones have to carry more traffic, thus neutralizing
advantages of the economies of scale).

In this respect, the mandated settlement-free NAP
connectivity (no matter how disliked by backbone ISPs) is
a good thing. Eventually FCC will have to come up with
interconnection rules, and i suspect they will take a dim
view on the continuing backbone consolidation and
exclusion of smaller players.

OTOH, the costs of peering with a lot of small folks are
non-trivial. I would expect IXP operators to start
offering the route clearing-house services on commercial
basis.

Assuming that the mandated settlement-free exchanges are
likely to be the future direction of regulatory push, the
hot-potato routing seems to be the best approach. You
simply act in your selfish interest by pushing packets off
your backbone asap.

--vadim