>list argues that these distinct subnets are unique exchanges. Don't anthromophize lists, they don't like it. No argument is being made. The property of principal interest to me in the list is the subnets, so that's what the list is of. Subnets of machines that can talk to each other at layer 2. Many of them overlap in different ways, but by definition, they don't overlap in subnet terms, which is what governs layer 3 reachability over layer 2 media. > only the very brave or very foolish will attempt such > catagorization. Posh Bill (norton) clearly points out that > the value of an exchange, like beauty, lies in the eyes/network > of the beholder. local/regional - peering/transit.... the > key thing is "whats in it for me?" Right, but everyone categorizes exchanges _for their own set of criteria_. It's feckless to attempt to argue that anyone's set of criteria are generally applicable, but it's the intersections of different folks utility-sets which govern the formation and endurance of exchanges. > Difference w/o (significant) distinction. Not at all. Read the paper before making pronouncements about it. > If -ANY- isp provides transit off the exchange fabric, > does that make it a transit exchange? Of course, for that ISP. -Bill