[10954] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: California NAP Designed as a CIX Killer??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hans-Werner Braun)
Tue Mar 15 23:36:58 1994
From: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 20:36:22 PST
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cook@pandora.sf.ca.us
In-Reply-To: <9403151941.aa29041@pandora.sf.ca.us>; from "Gordon Cook" at Mar 15, 94 7:41 pm
Gordon:
>Except the problem is that NAPs don't rule out settlements between members
>right? And the CIX does. Besides the whole point of joining the CIX is to get
>settlement free routing to all CIX members? If the CIX were to join the
>California NAP, you'd get routing from all other NAP members to all the CIX
>members without having to pay the CIX fee. In such a case the CIX might as well
>disband.
Whether or not settlements are a good approach in a particular case, I
do not believe a single anser, either way, will be applicable for the
Internet at large. Some people may just not like subsidizing others.
Others, like you seemingly, may not care. May be both approaches have
some merit?
If the CIX would in the end be the winner, I doubt that NSF would be
unhappy with that. Point is to come up with solutions, independent of
what they are. The answer matters less than the need that the answer be
found. From my experiences the CIX setup and interconnectivity isn't
exactly the best thing since sliced bread either. I suppose both the
CIX and the Feds and everyone else can learn something from each
other.
Hans-Werner
