RE: /24s run amuck again

["David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>]

> If you are on my upstream chain, then I am accompanying my routing
> requirements with money. Whatever penalty you may incur I pay for with my
> upstream payment. Where your statement holds is once you are not seeing
> money from me (i.e. you are not an upstream paid directly or
> indirectly by
> me), in which case what would help us all is a recognised [*] community
> attribute which says "advertise this prefix together with this attribute
> only to your upstreams"

        Actually, in all cases the requirements are accompanied by money. Even in
settlement-free peering, if the two sides didn't feel they were getting paid
to do whatever they are doing, they should sever the peering relationship
and charge. You are getting that route from somewhere and if you aren't paid
by someone to do so with value greater than its cost to you, you should stop
accepting the route.

        The money flows along the same paths the routes do. Every time a route goes
from router 1 to router 2, there is some agreement that allows it to do so.
If the route exchange costs you more than you're getting out of it,
renegotiate that connection.

        One thing that might help is if companies that work out peering that isn't
free start to charge based, at least partly, upon aggregation. If extra
routes really cost you, charge for them where they enter your network. Heck,
charge per route if you want. This should work well for small to mid-sized
companies that generally have trouble getting settlement free peering. I
doubt you could pressure UUNet, Sprint, or C&W in this way.

        DS