[48505] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Concepcion)
Thu Jun 6 10:33:35 2002
From: Daniel Concepcion <dani@intelideas.com>
To: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold.nipper@de-cix.net>,
"Jan-Ahrent Czmok" <czmok@gatel.net>,
"Sabine Dolderer/Denic" <dolderer@denic.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:31:21 +0200
Cc: <ddiaz@ripe.net>, <joao@ripe.net>, <lir-wg@ripe.net>,
<nanog@merit.edu>, <randy@psg.com>, <routing-wg@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <01a401c20d63$735bbab0$6590a8c0@notebook>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP
In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of
internet.
Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential
services, internet will be more robust.
Daniel
Intelideas
On Thursday 06 June 2002 16:07, Nipper, Arnold wrote:
> As a lot of people are offering secondary services: may be it's a good idea
> to place infrastructural services at IXP. IXP seem to be more stable than
> any ISPs and often more neutral than ISPs.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Arnold
