Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

Tony Li wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements
and quit this arbitrary filtering?

Great idea, but charges should apply to _peers_, not customers.
Charging customers for announces prefixes merely creates an incentive
for backbone operators to announce more routes and, correspondingly,
collect more money.


Personally I think the whole concept is on the ludicrous side of things. So
if a customer wants to announce /X they pay their provider say $X/month
for that privilige. So provider then pays provider2 $Y/month. Provider
also pays provider3, 4, 5, etc for the right to pass that route along.
Pretty soon all of the Y's add up to so much that customer loses interest
and decides to go to a smaller provider so that they don't have to pay as
much for their announcement. This scenario quickly becomes worse than the
current billing nightmare that the telcos face. Who is going to write the
backend system that runs on all of the backbone routers to track and report
routing usage statistics for billing purposes?

On that note, how can one treat "customers" different from peers? Aren't
they one and the same? Nobody that I am aware of has been able to quantify
the difference between the two, and therein lies the problem. Conceptually,
anyone that announces routes to me is my customer. Therefore I get to
charge them for the routes they announce to me. On the other hand, if I'm
announcing to them, they are also a peer (and I'm their customer) so I pay
them for my announcements. When anyone here has the ability to enforce a
global billing system that tracks and bills all parties according to usage,
please let me know. Of course, at that time, someone will decide to build
their own network that doesn't charge those rates, following the open source
model and we'll all be looking for jobs.. :slight_smile:

-- Tim