[11362] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The whole CIX concept is flawed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Wed Mar 30 10:50:00 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 02:31:59 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, com-priv@lists.psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199403300815.AAA22092@netcom9.netcom.com> from "Glenn S. Tenney" at Mar 30, 94 00:14:49 am
> At 1:08 AM 3/30/94 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >> hmmm... The CIX agreement reads:
> >> 6. Member will provide a circuit, at its own expense,
> >> from a location of its choice to a CIX router selected
> >> by mutual agreement, or other topologies and
> >> implementations specified by the Board of Directors.
> >
> >A passthrough connection <IS> a circuit, provided at the member's expense,
> >to a CIX router selected by mutual agreement of all parties involved. :-)
> >
> >It doesn't say <DIRECT> circuit.
>
>
> Hey, they seem to accept whatever you want when you pay your $10K, but when
> I see the words above "a circuit to a CIX router" I would only read it to
> mean TO A CIX ROUTER, not to someone else's router thence to the net as a
> whole. So, if you go through Alternet or someone else, then all of your
> packets go from there to the CIX router and THEN back out to the net?
> Yeah, right! That's really good use of resources...
You know, Glenn, you seem to be rather ignorant of how the net works in
reality..... or you just like making personal attacks with zero merit.
The reality is that if you have to transit to the CIX when the route for a
packet is computed, then you do. Period. You have to get there, and
whether it goes through one of my routers and five of someone else's or
six of mine makes ZERO difference.
Whether I buy a line from Sprint that goes from Chicago to San Jose, or
whether I pay Sprint (or MCI, or AT&T, etc) to carry my traffic is a
semantic difference really, and nothing more. Its a question of <format>
of the data -- not the act of transport.
> If that's what the CIX meant, then why didn't they say it. The way it is
> written perhaps may be a reason why some people aren't signing up -- they
> think they have to get to a CIX router.
They <do> have to get there. Routing without a path there is rather
useless, no?
> You know, Karl, no matter what anyone says you always twist it to suit your
> situation... Sigh... Let's just agree that everything you want it to be
> is the way it is to you, and the way everyone else sees it is different.
Considering that Bill Washburn and I discussed this, they took my
membership, and cashed my check, that's an obviously bald-faced lie
and an unwarranted personal attack. Let's stick to the issues, shall
we?
--
--
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.
