[456] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX Implications
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Lee Schoffstall)
Tue Mar 26 23:39:02 1991
To: tmn!cook@uunet.uu.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Mar 91 23:13:11."
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 23:36:29 -0500
From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 26-MAR-91 23:13
cook@tmn
The CIX announcement is interesting. Am surprised there has been little
(no?) comment. Would someone say what a comapny like Harris which
presumably is not now connected to any of the three partners in CIX would
have to do to send its packets from say Suranet to a PSInet gateway where
they could wind up presumably at plants in New York and california without
using the NSFnet backbone.
But doesn't SURANet have restrictions on THEIR backbone? For Harris to do
what you suggest would require:
1) harris to join one of the 3 cix participants
or
2) suarnet to join the CIX directly
What i am getting at is whether or not some kind of traverse fee is
feasible for those companies who are on other parts of the net as .coms or
whether a full fledged CIX router on my company presence is necessary to
enjoy the CIX freedom from commercial use restriction? Or is ther a
middle course? Could I sign up as a monthly dial in customer.
Who wants a traversal fee? Do you think SURANET's customer wants to
hear about how they can do something for $Y and something more for $Y+X?
I doubt it. Who wants to break the Internet paradigm right now of
a flat fee, and universal access? I know of only one organization.
Marty
