> > When geographic addressing (for v6, or even for v4) was > proposed, one of the big issues, brought forward by the > providers, was that it would require the provider to accept > traffic for any customer in the geographic region, and > deliver it. This was unacceptable.
Agreed. ?It costs money to have > infrastructure to handle packets. And no one was / is paying > for that infrastructure. > This seems to me to be exactly the same issue as for PTRs as proposed. It is not, because nothing is said about how the provider who creates a PTR propagates the PTR routes. Does he de-aggregate internally? Does he send the routes to customers, or to peers, or to both? The provider can choose this. This is the crucial difference from geo addressing. > There may be a way to deploy PTRs that gets them paid for, > but I don't know what it is. I tried to explain the benefits in another email. > > Ignoring economic issues is a recipe for failure. If no one > can afford to deploy the solution if it catches on, then they > will avoid doing so. > (Yes, anyone can afford PTRs in the early stage. That's not the > question.) > > And no, operators don't want to attract traffic. They may > want peering relationships (not all want them.) As Peter > sarcastically but accurately put it at the mike, they want to > be paid for traffic, but they don't actually want the traffic. > Its been my experience that its hard to sell upgrades to customer links until you start filling them up. I well know Peter's point though, it sure is nice to sell a 10g customer link and have him not use it. Imagine a customer with links to four providers. Two of the providers have PTRs. Which of the providers are going to see more traffic and therefore sell upgrades? -Darrel -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
