[88559] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hannigan)
Fri Feb 10 01:14:59 2006
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:14:29 -0500
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@renesys.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0602090751210.3862@paixhost.pch.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 11:08 AM 2/9/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
> > In hindsight, it would have been clearer to refer to these
> > places as peering exchanges however back in those days, the important
> > distinction wasn't between peering and transit.
>
>There was a significant effort from 2001 to distinguish between "peering
>exchanges" and "transit exchanges," and that's something I continue to do
>today.
Your trash is my treasure. Neutrality is key.
>However, a "transit exchange" is (and is Definition by Strong
>Assertion, since it's not a commonly enough used phrase to have a
>definition by general acceptance) a place where multiple buyers and
>multiple sellers convene to buy and sell transit in a market environment.
Strong assertion noted.
[ SNIP ]
>At least it's one step better than everybody who isn't one calling
>themselves a NAP.
NAP, IX, $IX, exchange. If there's a mutually beneficial reason to
be there, you will be there. If people are there, they will exchange
traffic. If they exchange traffic, they are an exchange.
I'd be happy to debate this point in a panel or BoF. It's been
beat to death here.
