Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles connectivity with IPXs. On Sep 26, 2013 1:28 PM, "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran <jcur...@istaff.org> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > >> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4... > > > > If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is > with respect > > to routing table slots. > > That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing > routing costs would > > be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with > various legal & > > competitive aspects. > > Hi John, > > That's putting it mildly. Establishing such a framework would be an > immense challenge. Here are some ideas I've heard: > > > 1. The International Clearinghouse > > Every BGP participant files with a clearinghouse, specifying: > > a. How much they charge to carry 1 route > b. Whether or not they are a leaf node > c. Whether or not they are a transit-free network. > > Any network which is not transit free must implement a default route > which leads to a big transit-free network in order to maintain full > connectivity. > > The BGP participants then publish the exact routes they intend to > announce to the clearinghouse and for each one select which networks > they'll pay to carry the route. The route must still reach each > network via BGP; payment just means that the network won't filter the > route out. > > The clearinghouse then collects payments from everybody and makes > payments to everybody, as well as providing each participant a list of > the routes that are paid for. Sellers are expected to promptly > incorporate new paid routes into their BGP filters. > > From my research a few years ago, a reasonable rate would be around 3 > to 4 cents per year per advertised route per BGP-carrying router in > the organization. A couple billion dollars per year if the routing > table maintained its current size. > > > 2. The partial routing scenario > > Large service providers put bids in to the RIRs for the right to > announce /8 covering routes for each /8 delegated to the RIR. Each /8 > matches exactly one service provider. Smaller BGP system participants > make private arrangements with a small (20 to 30) set of networks > (including their direct ISPs) to carry their advertised routes through > a reasonably redundant number of pathways to (and including) the > winning bidder for the /8 they inhabit. For the sake of performance, > they may also pay additional large networks to shortcut the traffic > towards them rather than let it dump at the /8 advertiser. > > For the folks you don't pay via the clearinghouse, many end-user > systems and the majority of transit systems simply don't carry your > route unless yours is among the handful of systems critically > important to their customers. Instead, traffic to your network follows > the /8 advertisement until it reaches a network which carries your > specific route. > > With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining > routes becomes moot. > > This is usually within a few percent of the routing efficiency that > would have been achieved with total route propagation. > > > 3. The routing overlay > > Establish a semi-stateless tunneling system. Each BGP participant sets > up a tunnel ingress node and links a default route to it. Packets for > a destination not found in the routing table follow the default route > to the tunnel ingress. > > The tunnel device then looks up an tunnel exit node via a mapping > protocol. Both the map server and the exit node have to be hosted on > IP addresses reachable via the normal routing table. > > Having found an exit node, the original packet is encapsulated into a > tunnel packet and sent to the exit node. The exit node is in a part of > the network that carries an explicit route to the destination. > > Then, move the definition of threshold size. Except for whitelisted > critical infrastructure, /24 advertisements would no longer carry an > expectation of universal distribution. To maintain connectivity, folks > at the bottom of the chain would need to establish or subscribe to > tunnel exit nodes that have a route back to them. > > With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining > routes becomes moot. > > The IRTF Routing Research Group studied such protocols a few years ago > and have pretty well fleshed out how to make one work with all the > tangled issues involving path mtu, dead path detection and so on. > Multiple designs sit on a shelf waiting for a promise that the > technology will be purchased if built. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > >
