On Dec 19, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > But what is all this about "is the ITU interested in changing BGP"? If the > word "metering" makes any sense in context, BGP doesn't meter anything.
Neither the reporter nor the Chinese proponents nor the ITU seem to understand that making use of combined flow telemetry/BGP analytics for traffic engineering, capacity planning, and billing applications has been a common practice for the last 13 or so years. This seems to pretty much be a non-story, except for the nationalization aspect of it. I concur with Nick's hypothesis that the actual end-goal may be to 'harmonize' trans-national peering agreements/transit fees, and then tax them (probably regressively in terms of transnational traffic) - with a sidecar of surveillance for good measure. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken
