[...] Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them.
CIX is taking new connections, either T1, PB-SMDS, or DEC-PAIX (FDDI or Ether).
Just a side thought about CIX's role in the Internet... With peering requirements becoming too strict for new players, I see two alternatives for getting good peering connectivity: - RA servers - semi-reliable registration-based database for routing updates - lacks media sensing - CIX - on-the-fly trust-the-providers routing updates - media sensing through BGP peering sessions - router could overload CIX started up long ago to "create a level playing field" (commercial providers vs. ANS/NSFNET/AUP). When everyone willingly peered with everyone else at MAE's and NAPs, CIX was becoming a moot point (why use CIX over a slow link when I can go direct via DS3/Router/Giga/- Router/DS3?). Now that the playing field isn't level anymore (big fish refusing to peer with little fish), perhaps CIX has a new use - simple peering at major exchange points. Instead of having people all try to peer with each other, a lengthy process and complex to manage), why not have CIX put a router in any exchange point and say, "Here CIX members, peer with this router and you'll get routing to every other CIX member at the exchange point." The "big ISPs" will still peer with each other directly, even privately, but they have enough traffic in between them to make it worthwhile. New or small ISPs would be the primary benefactors. So you ask, "What about RA?" I have nothing against it. For new providers, it's an excellent solution that gets them off the ground peering. I suspect though that some providers just don't like the fact that the routing is decoupled from the L2 switching making exchange point connectivity outages hard to detect/correct quickly. Some would say that CIX gets saturated. Yes, CIX-West was at one time fatally saturated on incoming bit pipes (not necessarily CIX's fault), but saturation can be reduced or eliminated by: - having multiple CIX routers - one set at every major exchange point (no, there's no bacbone in between). - rate-limiting peers to a maximum of XX Mbps (ATM, yes; possible on GigaSwitchs or FDDIs?). - detecting then encouraging peers with more than X Mbps of traffic (on average) to offload traffic to direct peering or other exchange points. - Using multiple iBGP routers at an exchange point. Then again, it doesn't have to be CIX; it just seems natural since they've been running CIX-West for oh-so-long. A bunch of smart BGP people can go out, get some money, buy the equipment, install it, and have ISPs pay them for the service. Would such a peering entity compete with ISPs? I don't think so. Routing at a peering point isn't their business - transiting customers to "the Internet" reliably and quickly is. ISPs would be the customers of the "enhanced peering service". I don't think this is really a new idea, nor really my concern, but I see two of my service providers struggling to get new peering and think, "There's got to be a better way." ... just something to think about. -- Eric Ziegast Looking in from the edge