[Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]

[a.harrowell at gmail.com (Alexander Harrowell)]

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 at nic.fr>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100,
>  michael.dillon at bt.com <michael.dillon at 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 at nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>