[11464] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
My $.02 on the CIX...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel P Dern)
Sun Apr 3 14:27:25 1994
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 11:21:07 -0400
From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Some anonymous cybernian said:
>Picture a couple of guys asking a shopkeeper for a monthly payment to
>"guarantee" nothing will happen to him, they will protect him from
>unspecified others who might cause him problems.
...
> The point is that this seems to be how the discussion is going now.
>People can't give a rational reason for why an ISP would cut off
>routing,and won't say that they intend to, they just can't "guarantee" it
>if the CIX isn't paid.
...
> Is anyone out there considering cutting off routing and using this tactic,
>or is this not really a real risk? Is it perhaps based on past experiences
>and fears which may not really be a problem anymore?
Puh-lease. If the CIX did not exist, we would be forced to invent it.
In some form.
Without the CIX, or CORen, or whatever, the Internet reverts to
a Balkanized "archipelago of networks." If the pieces of the Internet
do NOT interconnect, they are not, ultimately, part of the Internet,
but only the continental shelf of Matrix. As the US portion of the
Internet grew a usr base beyond the NSF sponsored/relevant one(s),
something like the CIX was essential.
I had an account on World pre-CIX; there were places I simply couldn't
telnet, FTP, etc to, because we (World) didn't (then) have NSF AUP
sanction. (Subsequently changed.)
Without network interconnections, be they CIXen, CORENs, GIXen, FIXen,
or whatever, there is no Internet. Period.
To the extent we (within the US) try to hop a free ride on NSF connectivity
we are a) mis-using tax dollars and b) only extending the grace period
of fantasy budgets for commercial usrs.
Without the CIX or equivalents, ISP selection criteria will have to
start including "What {networks, sites, stuff} do you connect to"
and then you'll need the equivalent of multiple terminals on your
desk to reach all the folks you want. If your selection of telco
carrier was based on which states, countries, etc you could reach,
would you think this OK?
A non-NSF hub/backbone/snakebone/whatever Internet eXchange is
essential and has been for several years. Period.
---
As for the SLIP and resale issue, those are separate worm cans I
can't speak to, since I'm not (yet) trying to buy SLIP, and certainly
have no intention of selling. Perhaps we need some alternative to
SLIP service for the single-station user? Perhaps we want the CIX
to re-evaluate some of its policies now that the downstream landscape
is changing? Perhaps.
Blackmail? Protection? Not from where I sit. It looks more like
people asking for a free ride and then complaining about the portions.
Or going to an all-you-can-eat buffer with a friend, not paying for
your own plate, and then complaining when the management catches you
eating all them chicken wings off your friend's plate.
Perhaps it is time for the CIX to have pipe(to CIX) based fees?
Or whatever.
But not paying a CIX fee, and selling service (or promise thereof)
which will require CIX-based traffic? Pony up. Or set up your
own infrastructure and connect IT to the CIX.
Daniel Dern
ddern@world.std.com
