[11198] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX v2.0
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu Mar 24 22:06:43 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: marc@MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 22:17:24 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403220258.AA13643@podge.MIT.EDU> from "Marc Horowitz" at Mar 21, 94 09:58:06 pm
> Ok, Karl. Here's a straw man. Tear me apart :-)
>
> It seems to me that as things stand now, there's a limit on the number
> of customers who will go to ANS or Sprint for CIX transit. That limit
> is those two NSP's T1 pipes into the CIX itself. If too many
> providers are trying to share that link, it will become saturated.
> Maybe that's already happening.
Its not yet with regards to Sprint, but I think you miss something
important here......
Any net provider who gets reasonably large starts talking to others about
direct interlink agreements of some kind. We're doing so right now with
other providers.
The CIX provides a gateway, but not the only one. As an example, Sprint
talks to Alternet directly. Therefore, in most cases it is "cheaper" (in
terms of routing distance) to go through that link rather than the CIX if
someone from my system wants to route to an Alternet address.
ISPs in general do this when the situation warrants. What the CIX brings
to the party is obviating the need to do 30 or more of these interconnects
at once. If the engineering staff of a given ISP is competent, they start
installing these connections (and negotiating them) before the single
choke-point becomes an issue.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
