[11050] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Question Re CIX fro Simon Poole
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Poole)
Fri Mar 18 21:42:17 1994
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 23:10:18 +0100 (MET)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403181710.aa13622@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Gordon Cook" at Mar 18, 94 05:10:24 pm
From: Simon Poole <poole@magnolia.eunet.ch>
> In answer to matthew kaufman, simon poole wrote:
>
> The CIX is not an exclusive arrangement, you can always make seperate
> agreements with all the current members. But since there is no requirement
> to peer with you (that would -really- be restraint of trade), settlement*
> would probably be required by the larger NSP's.
>
> * involving sums very likely a lot higher than $10k.
>
> -----------
>
> Simon, please explain in more detail what you are saying. I don't understand.
OK. As Karl explained in a mail he sent a bit after mine: the CIX does not
forbid private arrangements; there is nothing stopping us entering in to a
peer agreement with a non-CIX member, regardless of our respective CIX
membership status.
>
> Separate agreements to do what?
To peer.
>
> No requirement to peer with you?? Isn't peering defined as an exchange of
> routing information so that my customers can "see" yours and yours can "see"
> mine?
And an exchange of traffic, exchange of routing information only would be
fairly pointless.
> CIX members were required to do that with each other I thought?
Yes sure, however the discussion was about -non- CIX members.
> Can you give like mathew did a specific example of what you mean when you say
> settlement would like be required by the larger service providers?
Essentially that smaller nets would pay for connectivity to the larger
nets. I would rather -not- give more specific examples right now, since a
couple of these situations are currently in negotation.
Simon
