[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Updated ARIN allocation information
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other
> countries and they will fight a similar battles. Eventually the
> regulators will step in because it is bad for small businesses to
> be shut out of the Internet.
Mark -
ISPS consciously breaking Internet services are bound to attract
regulatory attention, but that does not necessarily mean that in
the end there will be regulatory action. In the case of peering
and route acceptance, it is fairly easy to show that there is a
finite amount of routes that a given ISP can accept, and each of
these routes has different value (i.e. some have large traffic
flows, some are peer traffic engineering, some of required backup
routes for shared multihomed corporate customers, etc.)
The result is not simple to regulate, because you can't just
mandate "accept all routes offered" - some ISPs are already
trimming what they accept to accommodate their particular
flavor of routing hardware.
For last few decades, we've basically been relying on the IP
allocation/assignment policies and their minimum block sizes as
a proxy for the default "worth accepting" metric, but this may not
prevail once there is serious pressure to fragment blocks to obtain
better utilization. It would be nice if there was a way to fairly
"settle up" for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the
routing table, as this would provide some proportionate backpressure
on growth, would create incentives for deaggregate cleanup, etc.
We don't have such a system, so it falls to each ISP to decide what
route is worth accepting based on type and the offering peer's
business relationship...
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone. Note - I haven't had enable on any
backbone routers in this _century_, so feel free to
discount/discard if so desired. ;-)