[48512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold Nipper)
Thu Jun 6 11:00:25 2002
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:55:44 +0200
From: Arnold Nipper <arnold@nipper.de>
To: Daniel Concepcion <dani@intelideas.com>
Cc: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold.nipper@de-cix.net>,
Jan-Ahrent Czmok <czmok@gatel.net>,
Sabine Dolderer/Denic <dolderer@denic.de>, ddiaz@ripe.net,
joao@ripe.net, lir-wg@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu, randy@psg.com,
routing-wg@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <200206061631.21845.dani@intelideas.com>
X-From: arnold@nipper (Arnold Nipper)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote:
>
>
> 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.
If an IXP decides to offer infrastructural services then you have to buy
upstream of course.
> Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential
> services, internet will be more robust.
>
At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such
infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their
customers would benefit from it.
And an IXP should be in a good position to get upstream :-)) And for
the commercials: these services are not for free of course. So bills
for IXP members will drop not raise.
-- Arnold
