[1228] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: technical details
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ittai Hershman)
Tue Aug 27 17:30:49 1991
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 17:29:55 EDT
From: Ittai Hershman <ittai@shemesh.ans.net>
To: wls@psi.com (William Schrader)
Cc: com-priv@uu.psi.com, lear@turbo.bio.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 27 Aug 91 16:32:25 -0400
Similiarly, ANS is studying the CIX agreement in detail. Some of
our concerns with regard to ANS joining the CIX, are:
o The CIX may not be scalable because it does not provide
routing arbitration. The CIX is merely an interconnection
point among a set of autonomous systems. To some this
is a feature, to others it is a serious design flaw.
Is the CIX model as scalable as its proponents suggest?
o The flat-fee settlements (previously described as a no
settlements policy) only works among equals.
The CIX founders are more-or-less equals at least in terms
of network bandwidth. Some have wider-scale deployment than
others, but the differences among them do not include the
infrastructure bandwidth. ANS is different in this regard.
We have a coast-to-coast T3 backbone.
If we were to interconnect with the CIX, how could we ensure
that other CIX members didn't piggyback off our infrastructure?
Can the CIX guarantee that only legitimate inter-carrier
traffic (i.e. CIX affiliated network customer to ANS customer)
crossed the CIX to ANS interconnect? Using what methods?
Perhaps the CIX should join ANSnet?
o If commercial traffic would be sent across the CIX into ANS
with no settlements, how would ANS fund the national and
regional infrastructure pools mentioned in the "Mid-level's
Guide"?
ANS is committed to the concept of helping defray the costs
of RE networking, by providing commercial attachments.
Having said this, I wish to reiterate that ANS is committed to full
interconnectivity with PSI, Alternet, and CERFnet -- as well as the
NSFnet mid-levels. We welcome any constructive comments and ideas,
as I'm sure the CIX Association members do.
-Ittai
