[5283] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIX Filtering...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Conrad)
Mon Oct 14 02:50:38 1996
To: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
cc: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON@aces.com>, salo@msc.edu, nanog@merit.edu,
davidc@apnic.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:15:15 -0400."
<Pine.SUN.3.94.961014001112.24493E-100000@unix1.netaxs.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 15:27:10 +0900
From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>
Hi,
>does any one know if they really ever did filter?
I believe they did, but Paul Vixie could answer authoritatively if
this issue is of major concern. My impression was that the CIX board
felt they *had* to filter of they'd have been nailed for not promoting
the industry (in violation of their tax exempt status) since they were
selectively filtering some ISPs and not others -- it has to be either
filter everyone or filter no one, and the CIX board chose "on" (since
they were already filtering some sites). However, I think within 6
months of deploying the filters, the CIX membership voted to turn them
off completely.
>On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Ehud Gavron wrote:
>> Actually it was the CIX' hubris in thinking their interconnect
>> to be of a value higher than all of its member networks.
I don't think they actually thought this -- I believe they were aware
the total number of routes filtered would be less than two dozen. My
impression (after several discussions) was that the CIX board felt the
filters were a necessity to keep the lawyers/IRS off their back.
>>SPRINTLINK (Bob Collette) quickly indicated they would route around
^-- president of CIX at the time
>>the CIX, and that made the whole issue moot.
Bob and Paul would probably be the best people to talk to about this
if you want the real answers...
Regards,
-drc
