> > > 1) You get a note from the owner of jidaw.com, a large ISP in Nigeria, > telling you that they have two defaultless routers so they'd like a > share of the route fees. Due to the well known fraud problem in > Nigeria, please pay them into the company's account in the Channel > Islands. What do you do? (Helpful hint: there are plenty of > legitimate reasons for non-residents to have accounts in the Channel > Islands. I have a few.) > > If I peer with them or sell them transit or buy transit from them then we have a reason to talk, otherwise, not so much.
> 2) Google says here's our routes, we won't be paying anything. What > do you do? > > There's a cost to taking the routes from Google, and a benefit to having those routes. As long as the benefit exceeds the cost, no worries. > 2a) If you insist no pay, no route, what do you tell your users when > they call and complain? > > 2b) If you make a special case for Google, what do you do when Yahoo, > AOL, and Baidu do the same thing? > > Back to the cost/benefit balance above. > I can imagine some technical backpressure, particularly against networks > that don't aggregate their routes, but money? Forget about it, unless > perhaps you want to mix them into the peering/transit negotiations. > > I think the only way it works, presuming anyone wanted to do it, is as a property of transit and peering. If I buy transit from you and want to send you a mess of routes, you might charge me more for my transit on account of that. Perhaps I get one free prefix announcement per x amount of bandwidth I am buying ? If we are peering then prefix balance might join traffic balance as a way to think about whether the arrangement is good for both peers. All of these arrangements occur between directly peering or transit providing neighbors. If I buy transit from you, I expect you to pay any costs needed to get my routes out to the world (and probably to charge me accordingly).
