[8590] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX COnnectivity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Rarey)
Wed Nov 24 21:42:06 1993
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 18:48:15 -0800
From: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@ssf-sys.dhl.com>
In-Reply-To: francis@avalle.insoft.com (John [Francis] Stracke)
To: "John [Francis] Stracke" <francis@avalle.insoft.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
On Nov 24, 11:06, John [Francis] Stracke wrote:
> Subject: CIX COnnectivity
}
} >} 4. Commercial sites attached to non-CIX providers attached to ANS
} >} Routed by ANS but not by CIX
} >
} >Why does CIX dis-allow item 4?
}
} Well, that's been a point of... discussion... (code for "our usual
} virulent name-calling, innuendo, and conspiracy theorizing") on the
} list lately. It seems that, in order for a provider to get its
} packets routed through CIX, it has to be an ANS member. ANS CO+RE has
} a deal where it's not a member (yet), but its packets get through;
} until a month or two ago, the regionals attached to ANS got through,
} but then CIX decided to filter them unless they became CIX members.
The context of the question was ANS as a CIX member, not as a non-member.
Any answers?
} It was expressed fairly well just the other day: ANS sees itself as a
} transit service; CIX sees itself as an exchange. When you contract
} with ANS to carry your packets, ANS will carry them, without caring
} where they come from; CIX, on the other hand, only exchanges packets
} among CIX members. IMHO, the ANS approach makes more sense from a
} technical point of view, and does less to fragment the Net. I don't
} understand CIX's reasons well enough to try to explain them.
Argh...:-( More semantics and retoric...
--
Best regards...,
psr:
