[88527] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Wed Feb 8 13:53:43 2006
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:45:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@renesys.com>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060208011401.01a80310@renesys.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Guys, are you being semantic?
Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to
mean, rather than the opposite.
> You keep saying EMIX
> and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates
> yes regardless of neutrality.
Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the
availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or
false_. Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_
an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering,
only with a single provider's commercial transit product. The same is
currently true throughout much of the Middle East.
-Bill
