[9937] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
NSF AUP restrictions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petri Ojala)
Fri Jan 28 05:03:32 1994
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 11:01:28 +0100
From: Petri Ojala <ojala@eu.net>
To: lars@eskimo.cph.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9401272339.AA12439@eskimo.CPH.CMC.COM>
> In general, the CIX routing is not nearly as solid as the CIX members
> would have us believe. In part, this is because the major CIX transit
> networks still point their default routes to NSF rather than to CIX.
>
> A few days ago, the EUNET link from Amsterdam to
> Falls-Church.VA.ALTER.NET was out of operation for a while. As designed,
> routing fell back to EBONE, and traffic from EUnet went via the SPRINT
> link from Paris into ALTER.NET, but most of the US was unreachable
> to me. It took a while to sort out why I could not reach CERFnet,
> when I could reach UUNET, and CERFnet could reach UUNET via CIX.
A small correction: EUnet's current US backup is via Ebone. Ebone
links from {Stockholm,Paris} to Washington are managed by Sprint ICM
and they are both connected to ICM-DC-1 at MAE-East, Washington.
Nor Sprint ICM (!= Sprintlink, I believe) or Ebone are CIX members and
there are no agreements with MAE-East connected CIX networks to
provide transit to CIX-West for Ebone-connected CIX networks, not to
mention the technical difficulties to do so.
Ebone is running full routing without default to NSFnet but as they
are not a CIX member, they don't have CIX routing (or prefer CIX over
NSFnet).
Regards,
Petri Ojala
EUnet NOC
