Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:24, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes: People pay the RIRs. The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators. ... according to for 2007 and

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Davidson) writes: > People pay the RIRs. > > The RIRs spend money on parties for network operators. > ... according to for 2007 and for 2006 a

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Andy Davidson wrote: I think that charging for deaggregation of PA is hard to imagine. I think charging for PI as a model may have been worthy of consideration several years ago, but since we're only months away from entire product lines of deployed edge kit nolonger acc

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 22 Jan 2008, at 17:30, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Hmm, who gets paid? It sounds like your hinting around a telco-type reciprocal payment model (correct me if I'm wrong). Do I pay my upstreams who in turn pay there upstreams and so on and so on? Or, is there some central, uber-

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 22, 2008 1:58 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Giving absolutely anyone who wants it PI space would make things much > worse...so I wouldn't call that artificial supression. It's more like > keeping the model sustainable. Jon, Its kinda like gas in the 70's. There wasn't enough

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote: Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. If by artificially suppress, you mean anyone who wants it can't just fill out a form and be handed a portable /2

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Hello Bill: > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:55 AM > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and > terminology] > &g

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

William Herrin wrote: > Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the > growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. > This is a Really Bad Thing on so many levels, but absent a viable > market-based solution to the problem, authority-based rationing i

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> The problem with William's calculation is that he is claiming the > _only_ difference between X & Y is "prefix count". (He said this, > more than once.) The only meaningful difference between X & Y for the purposes of this discussion _is_ prefix count. > He is dead wrong. No, he's quite

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. If we can determine the cost to announce a prefix then we could develop a market-based solution to the problem... instead of suppressing the prefix count, we GET

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008 10:28 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there really any point in trying to put a $ figure on each route? Jon, Emphatically Yes! Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space. T

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:14 PM, David Barak wrote: Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/ msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be offloaded? The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per prefix is zero until you need to chang

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, William Herrin wrote: Hmm. Well, the secondary market is flooded with sup2's right now, with the card at sub-$1k prices and with a 6500+sup2 in the $5k range. There isn't really a comparable availability of the sup720-3bxl although eBay does have a few listed in the $12k ra

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008 5:26 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If using the 7600/3bxl as the cost basis of "the upgrade", you might as > well compare it to the 6500/7600/sup2 or sup3b. Either of these would > likely be what people buying the 3bxls are upgrading from, in some cases > just because

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Wouldn't a reasonable approach be to take the sum of a 6500/msfc2 and a 2851, and assume that the routing computation could be offloaded? The difficulty I have with this discussion is that the cost per prefix is zero until you need to change eigenstate, where there's a big cost, and then it go

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote: > > Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose > > for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/ > > hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and > > then we can substit

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Joe Greco wrote: Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/ hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and then we can substitute it into the

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> > For example, the Cisco 3750G has all of features except for the > > ability to hold 300k+ prefixes. Per CDW, the 48-port version costs > > $10k, so the difference (ergo cost attributable to prefix count) is > > $40k-$10k=$30k, or 75%. > > Unfortunately, I have to run real packets through a r

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of RAM. If your goal is to have fine-grained routing data, and not to carry gigs of traffic, that parti

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote: > A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do > the job at an extremely low price point. > > Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traff

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I > > claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was > > attributable to its

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote: So at this point, the part of my analysis you still dispute is where I claimed that 75% of the $40k cost of an entry-level DFZ router was attributable to its ability to carry the needed prefix count. I didn't ask you to justify what you though

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote: > A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do > the job at an extremely low price point. > > Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traffic through it, but the > same concept does still apply. I dunno, the *NIXes seem sud

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 08:20:36PM -0500, Jeff McAdams wrote: > Joe Abley wrote: > > On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: > > >> Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. > >> I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline > >> for an

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 5:10 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we take out the "proper attribution for the cost delta" out of the > equation and the equipment is still not considered equal, I submit > your idea of "proper attribution" is, well, not proper. Patrick, So at this point,

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Joe Abley wrote: > On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: >> Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. >> I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline >> for an entry level DFZ router. > A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On 20-Jan-2008, at 15:34, William Herrin wrote: Perhaps your definition of "entry level DFZ router" differs from mine. I selected a Cisco 7600 w/ sup720-3bxl or rsp720-3xcl as my baseline for an entry level DFZ router. A new cisco 2851 can be found for under $10k and can take a gig of RAM.

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: The difference is much, much, much greater than that. Can the switch do ACLs? Policy routing? SFlow with the same sampling rate? Same number of BGP session? Is there some alternate piece of cheap hardware that supports the DFZ prefix coun

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

, Neil (missed the end of the last email!) -Original Message- From: William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 20 January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 2

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 1:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per > >> year > > > > No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost > > analysis i

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

January 2008 17:22 To: Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: >

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

> But before we go too far down this road, everyone here should realize > that new PI space and PA deaggregation WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. > > Many corporations paying for Internet access will NOT be tied to a > single provider. Period. Trying to tell them "you are too small, you > should

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: I think you mean in tiny fractions of a single cent per router per year No, I don't. The lower bound for that particular portion of the cost analysis is easy to calculate: Your calculation is in error. Entry level DFZ router: $40,000 St

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008 9:46 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> There was some related work on

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Ben Butler wrote: Or maybe... we will run out of corporates first! Which would have to be the best of outcomes, everyone multihomed how wants/needs plus a manageable route table without having run out of IPs or AS numbers. As Internet connectivity becomes mor

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: 20 January 2008 15:12 To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] Ben, I believe you are correct that PA deaggregation is a huge problem, but some of that could be corporate multi-homing. (I don&#

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

ing PI blocks of IPv6 as well? Am I correct on my interpretation of the numbers for PA:PI smaller prefix origins? Kind Regards Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: 20 January 2008 11:06 To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: nanog@me

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 6:06 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers suggested that the attributable economic cost

RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology] On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough &

Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]

On Jan 19, 2008 11:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > There was some related work on ARIN PPML last year. The rough numbers > > suggested that the attributable economic cost of one IPv4 prefix in > > the DFZ (whether PI, P