That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason. This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site, with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations. Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way. Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$) required to upgrade backbone routers.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM To: Tony Li Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
thanks geoff. :-)
and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check would have bounced!
randy