[Re: the cost of carrying routes]

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

they could probably make some good money if they also charged for 'leaky'
networks - however, i think the sentiment amongst their customers would
not be favorable (you charge for misconfigurations? some nerve you have)
it is probably one of those long term goals that you will almost never be
able to convince the powers-that-be of undertaking.

but i do pay for mistakes i make in other industries -- i pay for late
credit card payments and for parking where i should not. and these fines
keep me on my feet, and i try to blunder less often. why are running
networks different?

whats the incentive today to not make mistakes while running a network,
especially mistakes those that don't hurt yourself much? there is only
some amount of social pressure i think. wouldn't configuration errors go
down if providers/peers were to charge less for well-managed networks, or
charge more for poorly managed networks?

convincing customers just might be a matter of saying the right things.
for instance, "our services cost $Z in general, but if we find that you
manage your network well (some quantification), you pay only $Z-z (and
optionally, if you manage it very poorly, you pay $Z+z')."

  -- ratul

ps: since i don't run networks myself, all of this may be something that is
obviously asinine. would be great if someone was to point out if that is
the case, and why.

2

Remember - in most cases, the management of a company *may* have moral or
ethical requirements "to be a good citizen", but they almost certainly have
legal requirements to "the bottom line". If a site is paying you for transit,
there's a very strong *dis*incentive to take any action that would prevent a
DDoS attack - the bottom line says the Right Thing is to install just enough
traffic shaping so a DDoS won't melt *your* net, and bill for the traffic. :wink:

If anything, in that case you want to charge well-run sites MORE, to make up
for the revenue loss of them not being involved in a DDoS. :wink:

The exact same logic applies to spammage, worms, and other malware - when
there's a bandwidth glut, and you're selling bandwidth, you *WANT* traffic.

I wonder how much revenue SirCam and Nimda generated....

3

egal requirements to "the bottom line". If a site is paying you for transit,
there's a very strong *dis*incentive to take any action that would prevent a
DDoS attack - the bottom line says the Right Thing is to install just enough
traffic shaping so a DDoS won't melt *your* net, and bill for the traffic. :wink:

Not really true. I have to carry that traffic through my backbone and in doing, the DDOS traffic might take out or affect other services such as IP-VPNs (that would probably generate more money anyway).

Best regards,

- kurtis -