[9037] in North American Network Operators' Group
peers, peer-nots, judges/politicians, and you
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Sat May 3 20:12:49 1997
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 17:08:37 -0700
From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Here's something with cobwebs on it that bears on the current UUNET discussion.
To: xxx
Subject: text i removed from my recent message to nanog -- xxx
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:17:03 -0700
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie@wisdom.home.vix.com>
But what's interesting to me about this being your reason for not coming to
CIX is that your policy is being shaped by other policies that you don't like.
You have the option of configuring a CIX-connected router to avoid CIX for
paths which have AS xxxx in them.
Ultimately the battle lines will be drawn, and there will be three distinct
camps of folks (see below). In the mean while, the fact that the lines aren't
clear is letting a lot of folks play "chicken" with each other's customers,
and that's too bad.
When the battle lines form up, you'll see the peers, the peer-nots, and the
lawyers/judges/politicians. My personal and oft-stated goal is to make the
set of "peers" so large and so well interconnected that the "peer-nots" will
get complaints from their own customers if they can't reach all the "peers".
Choosing not to join CIX, or any interconnect you can afford to join, for the
reason you gave, works against the full connectivity of the "peers" in the
above black-and-white picture, and this in turn will make it easier for the
"peer-nots" to divide you all and conquer you, one at a time, since at no
time will they feel enough pressure from their own customer bases.
