[11023] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Poole)
Fri Mar 18 07:39:29 1994
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:49:50 +0100 (MET)
Cc: cook@path.net, stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com, fair@apple.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <m0phXcU-000Bc7C@mercury.mcs.com> from "Karl Denninger" at Mar 18, 94 00:01:17 am
From: Simon Poole <poole@magnolia.eunet.ch>
>
> However, routing via the CIX without a membership for customers can be a
> bad idea. What are you going to do if one or more of the CIX members start
> refusing your traffic, or propose to charge you a settlement in order to
> accept it? You have <zero> recourse in that case, whereas if you have a
> CIX membership the agreement says that direct customer traffic will be
> routed without settlements.
>
Karl sums up the whole point of the CIX very well. People on this list
seem to forget that with the exception of some very rare bilateral
agreements, the CIX membership is the only formal agreement that allows
a large part of the commercial service providers to sell connectivity
to other nets in the first place. The fact that a physical interchange
point happens to exist is totally secondary to this main purpose.
As an example: connectivity to CIX members is the -only- thing we guarantee
in our quotes and contracts. Anything else would border on being illegal
and would be suicidal from a business point of view.
A lot of the smallish providers should realize that they are only hurting
themselves by not becoming CIX members (and since we've been in the
position of one of our local competitors refusing to exchange traffic with
us, I know it hurts -really- bad from a sales and marketing point of view).
--
EUnet Switzerland Simon Poole
Zweierstrasse 35 Tel: +41 1 291 45 80
CH-8004 Zuerich Fax: +41 1 291 46 42 poole@eunet.ch
