[10958] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: California NAP Designed as a CIX Killer??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Sirbu)
Wed Mar 16 13:54:37 1994
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 13:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com, Pushpendra Mohta <pushp@cerf.net>
Cc: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu, com-priv@psi.com, cook@pandora.sf.ca.us
In-Reply-To: <199403161647.IAA02771@mystic.cerf.net>
Excerpts from internet.com-priv: 16-Mar-94 Re: California NAP Designed..
by Pushpendra Mohta@cerf.ne
> CIX members do not act as transit for other similar networks.
Doesn't this overstate the case a bit. I thought that CIX members would
act as transit for other similar networks, but only as part of a
privately negotiated agreement, which might well include settlements.
Indeed, it is my understanding that ANS serves that role now for some
regionals.
> 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
The policy of the CIX is not to REQUIRE members to carry this traffic
without settlements, the way they are required to carry traffic
presented to them at the CIX; does it in fact PROHIBIT them from
negotiating private deals to do so?
>
> --pushpendra
Marvin Sirbu
