[11283] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The whole CIX concept is flawed (as presented to the public at least)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Morten Reistad)
Mon Mar 28 09:49:03 1994
To: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, mrr@galba.boers.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Mar 1994 10:24:34 EST."
<9403261524.AA16145@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 00:07:30 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <mrr@galba.boers.no>
I am amazed at the abuse directed at the CIX here.
The CIX was never anything else than a routing peer of
last resort, i.e. somewhere you can talk to other
ip-providers without a lot of bargining and settlements.
As far as I know the CIX has only once had a connection-
fight, and that was with ANS some months back. ANS is
not excatly a "small startup" in my book.
$10,000.- (is this per year?) is not very expensive for
such an operation. This is about a third of what I expect to
pay for one 64K Sprint X.25 connetion, excluding access line.
It pays for approx. 1/8th of the cost of a trained professional.
How many ANS management salaries would the total CIX fees
pay, starting from the top? Two? Three?.
And, yes, there are alternatives. There is a GIX on the
drawingboard, the Washington part is operational, and
several national CIX'es. (There is one here in Norway,
where four providers hook up to exchange packets and
routing). I would very much like to see a CIX or GIX present in
Northern Europe somewhere.
So stop griping and go back to building the network.
-- Morten Reistad <mrr@boers.no> or <mrr@eunet.no>
Speaking for myself
