On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 06:11 , Frank March wrote:
This discussion has a direct bearing on the matter of international Internet charging about which I have posted on a number of occasions. There is a widespread movement in intergovernmental organisations (APEC TEL, APT, ITU-T, ITU-D) attempting to first measure international traffic (nothing wrong with that), second assess who benefits (by some yet to be determined means), and then through some regulatory mechanism institute a 'fairer' cost sharing mechanism.
I think the problem with the "fair" argument is that there's already a very pragmatic way of gauging who benefits from shifting bits over the Pacific. + if a NZ ISP loses the ability to send packets to the US, 99% of their customers complain + if a US ISP loses the ability to send packets to NZ, 99% of their customers don't notice This doesn't appear to leave NZ in much of a bargaining position. To your "saner peering" question: what makes you think that peering in NZ is not sane at present? A positive legacy of the use of OSPF at NZIX was that it allowed an environment of pervasive domestic peering to develop, such that the *market* demanded cheap and fast access within NZ by the time many commercial operators appeared. When I was still breaking routers in Auckland, I wasn't aware of any NZ net that 4768 had to send packets overseas to reach. Has this changed in the past two years? Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog