[11316] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The whole CIX concept is flawed (as presented to the public at
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph W. Stroup)
Tue Mar 29 01:47:29 1994
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 14:20:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
To: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403281520.AA20498@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
At the very least its lame to use the Anonymous server for your talks
here. What's going to happen ? Someone threaten your connection ?
Joseph Stroup
On Mon, 28 Mar 1994, Anonymous wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
