At 01:45 PM 2/8/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Guys, are you being semantic?
Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to mean, rather than the opposite.
> You keep saying EMIX > and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates > yes regardless of neutrality.
Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or false_. Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_ an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering, only with a single provider's commercial transit product. The same is currently true throughout much of the Middle East.
Here's the accurate cairo data: - CRIX is DOA - CAIX is the government sponsored replacement -nile, Raya, Egynet, and others I can't discuss. - they are peering - Regional IX If you have a room full of providers who connect up to a common switch and exchange something, I'd tend to believe that it is an exchange. GRX, Layer3, etc. I didnt disagree with you for the most part on the UAE, I asked why I saw what I saw. Joe answered the technical question and I found the political/technical choke point for the UAE's access. Google can confirm that. I can understand the frustration. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com