[10956] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: California NAP Designed as a CIX Killer??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pushpendra Mohta)
Wed Mar 16 11:50:06 1994
From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp@cerf.net>
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 08:47:50 -0800 (PST)
Cc: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu, com-priv@psi.com, cook@pandora.sf.ca.us
In-Reply-To: <9403160452.aa02749@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Gordon Cook" at Mar 16, 94 04:52:05 am
Gordon Cook writes:
>
> I suppose a CIX member who connected to the NAP would be required to
> carry traffic back from that part of the network to CIX members who
> choose not to connect?? If this is a correct supposition, it seems to
> me likely to place a further strain on the differences between some CIX
> members.
> Am I missing anything??
>
>
CIX members do not act as transit for other similar networks.
For example, CERFnet connects to the ESNET. If another CIX
customer chose not to connect, I will not backhaul traffic for them
to and from ESNET.
This has been the policy of the CIX since inception. Unless it changes,
the same would apply to a CIX member connection to any other network or
backbone, including the NAPs
--pushpendra
Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908
Director of Engineering pushp@sdsc.bitnet +1 800 876 2373
CERFNet
