Mark, the issue as I see it is that the current plan for implementing CIX connectivity is a change from the previous policy, and that you are now shifting responsibility for ensuring this filtering from your routers to the regionals, which for the regional, may involve significant administrative load, and which is the organization best capable of dealing with that administrative load. Further, there is also the issue that this plan does not appear to have been developed in a cooperative fashion with the regionals and other peers networks as a whole, as past shifts of functionality and responsibility between the backbone and regionals were done. I think there is not uniform consensus that the approach described is the best way of accomplishing the end goal, which also hasn't been described in a very explicit way, and is complicated by goals that NSF has and potentially other goals that ANS itself has. I'm not saying there is a conflict here, just that the precise goals and objectives do not appear to be well understood by all parties involved. This of course leads to confusion, which in turn will impede progress on any approach selected. It's hard to judge when you've got a good design if you don't understand what the requirements for the design are! Please feel free to correct me if I'm off base here. This is just my perception at this point, and I'm really not trying to throw stones, just trying to make sure evryone is working together on getting the job done right. Thanks, Milo