[88531] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hannigan)
Wed Feb 8 15:06:08 2006
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:05:34 -0500
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@renesys.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0602081041280.7295@paixhost.pch.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 01:45 PM 2/8/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 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.
Here's the accurate cairo data:
- CRIX is DOA
- CAIX is the government sponsored replacement
-nile, Raya, Egynet, and others I can't
discuss.
- they are peering
- Regional IX
If you have a room full of providers who connect up to
a common switch and exchange something, I'd tend to
believe that it is an exchange. GRX, Layer3, etc.
I didnt disagree with you for the most part on the UAE,
I asked why I saw what I saw. Joe answered the technical
question and I found the political/technical choke point
for the UAE's access. Google can confirm that.
I can understand the frustration.
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
hannigan@renesys.com
