> On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:35:35AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Is the last paragraph of 4.1 an IETF consensus position on how operators
>>> might charge one another? It would be good to find a way to word this
>>> that look more like statements of fact and less like charging advice.
>>
>> darn hard as there are no facts there and it is first class lawyer
>> bait.
>
> Indeed.
>
> It might be better to remove this part:
>
> "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the
> unexpected traffic flows opposes the peering agreement. In this case,
> an operator could account the amount of traffic that has been subject to
> the unexpected flows, using traffic measurement protocols such as IPFIX,
> and charge the peer for that traffic. That is, the operator can claim
> that it has been a provider of that peer for the traffic that transited
> between the two ASes."
>
> Instead something like:
>
> "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the
> unexpected traffic flows violates a contractual agreement between the
> two networks."
>
> And just leave it at that.
I support Job’s proposed improvement wholeheartedly.
-Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail