Does anyone remember when the CIX proposed to filter networks of customers of CIX members which were not themselves CIX members? Was it as early as 1995? (We are trying to review a paper on Internet exchanges. It seems ironic that this effort by the CIX to restrict traffic was rendered ineffective by the same technique the CIX used to overcome the impediments created by the NSFNET AUP, namely alternative paths for "unacceptable" traffic.) Thanks, -tjs
since I broke the story to the net i remember very well. the CIX board meeting was on July 15, 1994 i believe and i had my story out within 48 hours.... It was leaked to me within 3 hours of the close of the meeting. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ************************************************************************ On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Tim Salo wrote:
Does anyone remember when the CIX proposed to filter networks of customers of CIX members which were not themselves CIX members? Was it as early as 1995?
(We are trying to review a paper on Internet exchanges. It seems ironic that this effort by the CIX to restrict traffic was rendered ineffective by the same technique the CIX used to overcome the impediments created by the NSFNET AUP, namely alternative paths for "unacceptable" traffic.)
Thanks, -tjs
Does anyone remember when the CIX proposed to filter networks of customers of CIX members which were not themselves CIX members? Was it as early as 1995?
Actually it was November of 1994. Ehud
(We are trying to review a paper on Internet exchanges. It seems ironic that this effort by the CIX to restrict traffic was rendered ineffective by the same technique the CIX used to overcome the impediments created by the NSFNET AUP, namely alternative paths for "unacceptable" traffic.)
Actually it was the CIX' hubris in thinking their interconnect to be of a value higher than all of its member networks. SPRINTLINK (Bob Collette) quickly indicated they would route around the CIX, and that made the whole issue moot. (or "academic" if you're in the real world.)
well they were threatening to filter all through the fall of 1994 and early december was the last deadline that I remember. the deadlines would come and go with no filtering. does any one know if they really ever did filter? it is my impression that if they did do any at all it was small and besides by december 1994 you had naps beginning to come on line which would have provided a way around filters.....although the little guys were not exactly clamoring to get into the naps at that point. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ************************************************************************ On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Ehud Gavron wrote:
Does anyone remember when the CIX proposed to filter networks of customers of CIX members which were not themselves CIX members? Was it as early as 1995?
Actually it was November of 1994.
Ehud
(We are trying to review a paper on Internet exchanges. It seems ironic that this effort by the CIX to restrict traffic was rendered ineffective by the same technique the CIX used to overcome the impediments created by the NSFNET AUP, namely alternative paths for "unacceptable" traffic.)
Actually it was the CIX' hubris in thinking their interconnect to be of a value higher than all of its member networks. SPRINTLINK (Bob Collette) quickly indicated they would route around the CIX, and that made the whole issue moot. (or "academic" if you're in the real world.)
The original threat was November 1. Then it became November 15. Then it became "soon". There was never a December deadline. Then it became moot. Ehud p.s. Gordon, you might check on what legitimate journalists wrote at the time. There's lots of opinionless fact filled stuff that would explain it all.
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Ehud Gavron wrote:
The original threat was November 1. Then it became November 15. Then it became "soon". There was never a December deadline.
The decision to filter was taken by the CIX board at its meeting on July 14, 1994. the threat was to impose filters on november 1.
Then it became moot.
yep
Ehud p.s. Gordon, you might check on what legitimate journalists wrote at the time. There's lots of opinionless fact filled stuff that would explain it all.
Don't know what your criteria for legitimacy is Ehud. Boardwatch in its September 1994 issue (out mid August) published a 6,000 word article by me. it published a second article two months later. This in addition to my newsletter. Ellen mesmer of network world picked up my story from the net on july 16 and published a story of her own in the July 25th issue...all without crediting me as the source. I have been quoted in the last 60 days in the New York Times, by Gilder in telecosm, and by Network World in its "health of the net" series. My high end subscription is $1,000 a year with eleven major corporations paying that freight. Sorry if you have some kind of problem with me.
Hi,
does any one know if they really ever did filter?
I believe they did, but Paul Vixie could answer authoritatively if this issue is of major concern. My impression was that the CIX board felt they *had* to filter of they'd have been nailed for not promoting the industry (in violation of their tax exempt status) since they were selectively filtering some ISPs and not others -- it has to be either filter everyone or filter no one, and the CIX board chose "on" (since they were already filtering some sites). However, I think within 6 months of deploying the filters, the CIX membership voted to turn them off completely.
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Ehud Gavron wrote:
Actually it was the CIX' hubris in thinking their interconnect to be of a value higher than all of its member networks.
I don't think they actually thought this -- I believe they were aware the total number of routes filtered would be less than two dozen. My impression (after several discussions) was that the CIX board felt the filters were a necessity to keep the lawyers/IRS off their back.
SPRINTLINK (Bob Collette) quickly indicated they would route around ^-- president of CIX at the time the CIX, and that made the whole issue moot.
Bob and Paul would probably be the best people to talk to about this if you want the real answers... Regards, -drc
david-randy's recollections match my own. i implemented the filters as my first job for cix. zero (0) routes were affected.
participants (5)
-
David R. Conrad -
Ehud Gavron -
Gordon Cook -
Paul A Vixie -
salo＠msc.edu