[11091] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A New CIX Design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dick St.Peters)
Mon Mar 21 21:58:16 1994
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 22:10:35 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>
>The CIX is already a registered non-profit
Ok, fine, I thought so. I take it you're not opposed to this then. Good.
>If its on a "per-routed-network" basis you're going to have a lot of people
>registering Class "B" networks and splitting those up to their customers so
>as to evade the "per network" charge. This won't work if that starts to
>happen. And, given this model, it will happen. Its unavoidable. Just as
>people today put their SLIP customers on their own internal network numbers
>in order to insure CIX connectivity (since you can't tell what's going on
>then).
>
>There is a <profound> difference in cost and load imposed between a Class "B"
>network with 10,000 hosts behind it and a Class "C" network which can have
>at most 253 hosts behind it.
>
>If you impose the charge based on the network class you make it
>unaffordable for those who have older Class "B"s that they registered back
>when they were plentiful, but are using only a small percentage of the
>address space.
>
>How do you propose to address this?
Do the obvious: weight the networks by the number of registered hosts
on them. Sheesh Karl, even I know how to query DNS to get a list of
hosts. Besides, CIDR is doing away with classes pretty much, no?
I could devise random sampling schemes to look for unregistered hosts
to check for cheating. More knowledgeable people could devise better
ones.
Or use random sampling to estimate how many hosts from each large network
are being routed through the CIX.
>The existing contracts and agreements run for two years. Anything which
>dilutes the value we paid (and others paid) is going to be seen VERY dimly
>by the present membership, and in fact could be seen as a breach of contract
>by the current members. I know that I would view <very> dimly any attempt
>to "force" the CIX to change its pricing model.
Well, I put my proposal "on the table" at your invitation. If the only
thing you'll accept is no change, you misled me, and I fell for it.
>Look at the present model again:
>Let's say, for example, you have 10 people who want to corroborate on a CIX
>connection. That's $10,000/10, or $833/year/each.
Go to bed Karl. Your arithmetic is getting as bad as mine.
--
Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
