On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: <snip>
Cogent, Open Level(3), Not public We Dare B.V., Open
So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. Cut off Level(3)? Sue them?
That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their bills on time.
Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the "enforcement" business. That's for governments.
Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me.
(As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that "private" organizations are somehow preferable to "public" organizations. It has always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.)
I never generalised, I merely pointed out that creating governmental IX's has nog benefits compared to the current IX's. AMS-IX, DE-CIX, LINX, etc. etc are open to everyone wanting to connect, that's public enough for me, without having to be goverment controlled. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl