Personally I consider P4P a big step forward; it's good to see Big Verizon engaging with these issues in a non-coercive fashion. Just to braindump a moment, it strikes me that it would be very useful to be able to announce preference metrics by netblock (for example, to deal with networks with varied internal cost metrics or to pref-in the CDN servers) but also risky. If that was done, client developers would be well advised to implement a check that the announcing network actually owns the netblock they are either preffing in (to send traffic via a suboptimal route/through a spook box of some kind/onto someone else's pain-point) or out (to restrict traffic from reaching somewhere); you wouldn't want a hijack, whether malicious or clue-deficient. There is every reason to encourage the use of dynamic preference. On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote a message of 46 lines which said:
This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical information about the network into the decision-making process.
It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there someone involved in P4P at Nanog?
http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/
IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some ISPs, will they trust this service?
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog