> what the world is short of is routing table
> slots, each of
> which adds universal cost to the internet for the sole benefit of
> the owner
> of the network thus made reachable.
I see this point made often, and I've never understood it. If carrying a
route only benefits the party that issued the route, why do it? It seems to
me that being able to reach someone is of as much value to you as it is to
them.
I wonder why IBM, Apple, Cisco, and Ford don't connect their corporate
web
servers to routers that don't contains any of these expensive routes that
are only for the benefits of the entities that announce them. Perhaps you
should explain to them all the money they could save.
Better connectivity on either end benefits both ends of the connection.
DS
