[64044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ix's & prefix registration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Wed Oct 15 05:41:04 2003
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:10:09 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@outblaze.com>
To: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <saq66@umkc.edu>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <5EF7D95E17BDAD4A968C812E5ABC390BAA784D@KC-MAIL4.kc.umkc.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) writes on 10/15/2003 6:37 AM:
> This is FUD. To my knowledge, your assertions have been clarified
> by nixi folks.
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/india-gii/2003-June/004357.html
you mean
> (in fact...i can dare to add here that none of the connecting ISP's has
> raised an issue on the multilateral peering clause...on the contrary some
> ISP' want that..)..so there...
Yeah, sure. *Some* ISPs want mandatory multilateral, I'm sure.
> I agree with you that some of nixi exchange policies are not good. But,
> they also dropped other dangerous policies ( e.g., nixi acting as a govt
> mandated transit provider.) Also, in nixi case, exchange policies are set
> by/to/for Indian ISPs (represented in nixi committee.) So, rather than
> throwing clichés, you should participate in their mailing list and
> convince them with constructive feedback.
Man, a lot of us have given them our opinions, you know that. If they
ask us (or better still, ask someone with clue like Bill Woodcock et al)
then great. If they go on dancing to their own tune, very well then.
The other "ideas" were dropped after a lot of hard work on several
people's part.
srs
--
srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9
manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
