[11088] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
A New CIX Design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dick St.Peters)
Mon Mar 21 21:26:47 1994
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 19:42:09 EST
From: stpeters@swan-song.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
To: karl@mcs.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Reply-To: <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>
>From karl@mcs.com Sat Mar 19 17:40:56 1994
>> there is more than
>> one way to run a CIX.
>
>So put it on the table.
Well, actually I have before, but let's try again. The main thing I'd
like to see is to make CIX routing be a service that those who connect
to the CIX buy and resell to their customers.
Some elaborations on how to make this work and be equitable:
Have the CIX be non-profit, so total CIX revenue is a reasonable
approximation to total actual CIX costs.
Leave intact the provision that anybody can string a line to the CIX
and buy routing directly from the CIX, and have the CIX charge to
directly-connected networks (DCs) be on a per-routed-network basis.
These prevent new small guys from being shut out.
The DCs can pass that charge on to their customers on any basis they
and their customers find acceptable ... in other words, let the market
decide.
> As I have said before, many times, I am NOT
>adverse to discussing such things, and in fact am quite prepared to open
>such a transit point here in Chicago if it makes sense.
>
>What's "makes sense"?
>
>1) It has to operate at break-even, because I'm not interested in
> funding someone else's experiments.
>2) It has to be equitable to all participants.
>3) It has to be sustainable over a long period of time, and not contain
> built-in self-destruct clauses in the terms of access.
Well, Chicago makes sense geographically, but I doubt you could get the
big guys to come. I think it makes more sense to get the current rules
changed.
Since I've never designed a CIX before, there are probably things I haven't
thought of, but I think this meets your conditions and some of my own. It's
break-even sort of by definition: add up all the costs, toss in something
for growth, divide by the numbers of networks, and send out the bills.
To me, it looks equitable to big guys, small guys, old guys, new guys,
direct-connects, and those who buy transit and routing from a DC. At
worst a new small provider who can't get anyone to sell him transport
and routing has to string a line to the CIX ... which is what he has to
do now, but he won't be adding many networks to the pot, so his entry
fee is small. He can share the cost of that line with other small fry
by selling transport and routing to them. I don't think this will be
necessary though; if there's a market selling transport to the CIX,
somebody will fill that niche. I even think I know who - or one of the
likely several who's.
Now where did I put that flame retardant ... ?
>> >>Either you're for us or again' us.
>>
>> Karl, you have an attitude problem :-)
>>
>> Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
>
>Why thank you! :-)
Sigh ... one of few times *I* get to have some fun with my
name ... :-)
--
Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
