[9886] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)u
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Jan 25 17:26:17 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:22:41 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.759535513.ittai@shemesh.ans.net> from "Ittai Hershman" at Jan 25, 94 05:05:13 pm
> Karl,
>
> I am afraid you are confused. The point that I was making is that CIX
> members are intentionally reducing their reliance on the private-
> enterprise CIX router and increasing their reliance on the taxpayer-
> supported NSFNET Backbone Service which they take every opportunity to
> complain about.
Really? Why not announce those routes with a lower preference? Is this
the CIX's doing, or is this MERITs doing with the PRDB? You folks set the
hopcost, do you not?
I would <prefer> to use the CIX transit where possible, and the NSF transit
only where <necessary>. The routing tables may say otherwise, but that's
not my doing -- all I can do is announce the routes I have, and <ask> MERIT
to announce the routes to the PRDB for the NSF. The weights that MERIT
attaches to those routes has a large part in the "best cost" path that is
taken by the packets, does it not?
I don't administer the NSF routing tables. I do administer my own BGP peer
tables, but those don't get picked up at the FIX -- thus, this is someone
else's decision, not mine!
How do <I> influence this choice? By not announcing my network numbers to
the NSF at all? Absent that, how do I make this decision? The answer is
that I do not -- MERIT does.
> Incidentally, there are two commercial providers who are CIX members
> that also provide networking services to NSF. You consistently
> complain only about one. Surely, you know that Sprint's commercial IP
> business also started off from a cooperative agreement with NSF.
Yep. I also know that Sprint's commercial IP business <is> commercial,
and that they DO NOT provide CIX routing to resale customers customers
without that customer also being a CIX member.
That is, they don't try to "backdoor" the membership of the CIX. This
is a policy choice on their part, and one that I happen to agree with
fully. The CIX model only works as long as funding is available to cover
the increased cost of equipment and staff as more network providers and
connections come online.
It is usual and normal for people to do business with those they agree with
:-)
> As for what the CIX Association should or should not be doing, why
> don't we discuss that on the CIX-Members mailing list. I find it a
> bit odd that CIX members don't seem to communicate with each other
> via CIX mailing lists for anything but real-time operational issues.
Well, you have a point there. On the other hand, I believe that my
position on this stuff is one which I'm willing to share, and hold out
for everyone on com-priv (which is about the privatization of the net)
to listen to and take their own public position on -- if they so choose.
Further, I see no reason <not> to discuss these issues in a more open (ie:
not "member's only") forum. This stuff is going to be of great importance
to net citizens as time passes, and thus I believe this is an appropriate
place to discuss the issues as they arise.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
