[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
Yes. But in the meeting you promised to come back to the issue of how
this can be made to work business-wise. The problem that I can see is
that if all PTRs announce the whole (or big chunks of it), they have
capability to say no to any customer. Anyone's packets can be routed
the nearest PTR, and once the PTR has a packet, it cannot refuse to
tunnel it to the right place. So from a business point of view this
makes it hard or perhaps impossible to contract with customers for
service. Presumably the motives for deploying PTRs must then lie
elsewhere, such as in improving your regular customer's service, or
interaction with the business models of plain old Internet SP business
There are only 2 technical solutions, NATs or PTRs. They can solve the
problem. If you choose something else that you think makes business
sense it could not even come close to solving the problem.
Let's first worry about solving the technical problem. Or else we
don't have to worry about any business models.
Have you thought more about this now, and can you say something
on the list?
It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. Providers
will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They typically don't
want to say no. The more traffic they attract the more peering they
can get. And the business opportunities start from there.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg