[11301] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The whole CIX concept is flawed (as presented to the public at
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Mon Mar 28 17:48:45 1994
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 94 10:20:04 -0500
From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
least)
Morten Reistad <mrr@galba.boers.no> writes:
>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.
The point isn't what CIX has been, but what people are giving the
impression it is now. It has been giving many people the impression that it
may possibly cut off routing if they don't join. MUCH of the discussion
here lately has been about what an Internet Reseller is, ie. who needs to
join the CIX. Persumably the reason people need to figure out who NEEDS to
join the CIX, rather than letting it be voluntary, is to make sure they
don't get cut off. Perhaps CIX won't start cutting people off, but that is
the impression it is giving to many people, which is what I wanted
clarified concretely one way or the other.
The argument was also against the whole competitive philosophy of routing
fights in general. The reason the subject said "(as presented to the public
at least)" is that the "abuse" as you referred to it was directed at the
public image being given out, which may be incorrect, if so it should be
clarified. Alot of the discussion here lately seems to be based on this
image of the CIX though.
>$10,000.- (is this per year?) is not very expensive for
>such an operation.
This is NOT about ANS, its about SMALL local bootstrapped providers.
>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,
The question is why should we need to join one? If we connect through
another provider why should they double dip?
>So stop griping and go back to building the network.
Which is what we are trying to do, we are just concerned about CIX getting
in the way of this. As a matter of principle we shouldn't NEED to join. And
if we do, we'll be happy to stop gripping if you feel like paying the 10k
for us to join. (Don't wish to? Well neither do we, our budget probably
isn't much different from your personal budget at the moment).
The network will grow through alot of grass roots providers, so we wish to
make sure they don't have problems and can get on with building the
network.
