[8609] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX COnnectivity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Nov 26 00:18:55 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: francis@avalle.insoft.com (John [Francis] Stracke)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 23:18:17 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9311260458.AA11091@avalle.insoft.com> from "John [Francis] Stracke" at Nov 25, 93 11:58:53 pm
> >On Nov 24, 11:06, John [Francis] Stracke wrote:
>
> ...in private mail, I believe. If I'd meant it to go to the list, I'd
> have sent it to the list.
>
> >} >} 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?
>
> >The context of the question was ANS as a CIX member, not as a non-member.
>
> As I understand it, even if/when ANS becomes a CIX member, its
> customers will still have to join CIX themselves to get CIX to route
> their packets. That's how all CIX members' customers are currently
> treated, right?
No.
ANS' commercial connection customers are able, by virtue of their recent
joining of the CIX, to route packets to and from CIX members.
HOWEVER, the ANS GATEWAY customers (ie: mid-level and regional network
providers) DO NOT gain this connectivity for their customers unless they
also join the CIX. In fact, ANS doesn't have to be a member for the Gateway
customers to join -- I understand a couple of them are in fact members
already.
Thus, their recent announcement gives their <attachment> customers (ie: end
user organizations) CIX connectivity -- but does NOT give their resale
customer customers (can you parse that :-) CIX connectivity. The gateway
customer networks <themselves> get CIX connectivity out of this.
Where it gets blurry is for those who sell, say, SLIP access. Is a SLIP
customer on the ANS Gateway customer's network number supposed to get
routed or not? This is a loophole in that there is really little you
can do other than not route the gateway's network numbers to prevent
this from happening -- but the gateway organization <itself> <IS> entitled
to CIX connectivity as a result of ANS joining. If you want to be a stickler
for what the CIX is <supposed> to be from their agreements and such, then
those customers of the gateway organization should not have CIX connectivity.
> If the transit/exchange distinction is really what's going on, it's a
> good explanation of why we have this disparity. Without this
> explanation, I didn't understand the problem; with it, I do. The
> difference is that my assumption had been that CIX was a transit
> provider like ANS; understanding why and how that assumption breaks
> down is a Good Thing.
See above.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
