From recent discussions on this list, I thought that the reason that DIGEX could not reach AGIS sites (and vice-versa) was because of AGIS's new peering policy, and not because of a circuit disconnection.
(from http://agisgate.agis.net/outage.htm) Problems Reaching DIGEX -- UPDATED 10:40 EST October 29, 1996 Digex has disconnected their ANS circuit. We previously saw Digex routes only through ANS (our direct connection with Digex has been gone for a few months now). Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them. -- Bob Collie, Network/Systems Engineer, Telalink Corporation mailto:rmc@telalink.net
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Bob Collie wrote:
From recent discussions on this list, I thought that the reason that DIGEX could not reach AGIS sites (and vice-versa) was because of AGIS's new peering policy, and not because of a circuit disconnection.
(from http://agisgate.agis.net/outage.htm) Problems Reaching DIGEX -- UPDATED 10:40 EST October 29, 1996
Digex has disconnected their ANS circuit. We previously saw Digex routes only through ANS (our direct connection with Digex has been gone for a few months now). Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them.
This is inaccurate. DIGEX <-> AGIS peering sessions were up until 2-3 weeks ago. I believe DIGEX informed AGIS that their ANS transit was going to go away and it would cause connectivity problems if AGIS took down the peering sessions. -dorian
So now we all watch to see who blinks first, or is universal connectivity no longer a goal? I suppose each side is blaming the other. What a way to run Internet. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
This is inaccurate. DIGEX <-> AGIS peering sessions were up until 2-3 weeks ago. I believe DIGEX informed AGIS that their ANS transit was going to go away and it would cause connectivity problems if AGIS took down the peering sessions.
Now its a question of whether Digex should run a DS3 connection to another NAP [Isn't 4 the requirement?] or continue to pay ANS for the circuit. This is just a guess, but I suspect Digex will lose more customers if they cannot connect to Agis than the other way around. However I am not intimately familiar with either networks customer base. -Deepak. On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Laughlin wrote:
So now we all watch to see who blinks first, or is universal connectivity no longer a goal? I suppose each side is blaming the other. What a way to run Internet.
Best Regards, Robert Laughlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
This is inaccurate. DIGEX <-> AGIS peering sessions were up until 2-3 weeks ago. I believe DIGEX informed AGIS that their ANS transit was going to go away and it would cause connectivity problems if AGIS took down the peering sessions.
Now its a question of whether Digex should run a DS3 connection to another NAP [Isn't 4 the requirement?] or continue to pay ANS for the circuit.
AGIS has made it a 5-NAP requirement - and the AADS and PacBell NAPs are not the easiest to get into on 1-day notice.
This is just a guess, but I suspect Digex will lose more customers if they cannot connect to Agis than the other way around. However I am not intimately familiar with either networks customer base.
-Deepak.
Digex has sec.gov and other .gov sites... - and a lot of other business historically in the DC area. Those are of interest. AGIS has a number of ISPs and some RBOCs as customers of note. Avi
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability? Rob
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Bob Collie wrote:
From recent discussions on this list, I thought that the reason that DIGEX could not reach AGIS sites (and vice-versa) was because of AGIS's new peering policy, and not because of a circuit disconnection.
(from http://agisgate.agis.net/outage.htm) Problems Reaching DIGEX -- UPDATED 10:40 EST October 29, 1996
Digex has disconnected their ANS circuit. We previously saw Digex routes only through ANS (our direct connection with Digex has been gone for a few months now). Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them.
This is inaccurate. DIGEX <-> AGIS peering sessions were up until 2-3 weeks ago. I believe DIGEX informed AGIS that their ANS transit was going to go away and it would cause connectivity problems if AGIS took down the peering sessions.
-dorian
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
*shrug* If the disconnected network is not interesting enough, why would you give in? For example, if my home network (blackrose.org) showed up at N exchange points, and stopped having a transit link, would you peer with me? This is all going back to Geoff Huston's animals running across each other in the middle of the night thing. -dorian
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
*shrug* If the disconnected network is not interesting enough, why would you give in? For example, if my home network (blackrose.org) showed up at N exchange points, and stopped having a transit link, would you peer with me?
Yes, but the problem is that customer don't understand and you will get some that will yell. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
Ya, we have the same problem, we will be at 7 NAPs by the end of the month, and DIGEX does not meet our peering requirements. If I don't peer with DIGEX then our customers yell at us when it is a DIGEX problem. What we could do is all cut peering say the first of the year and then DIGEX would need to buy transit or connect to more NAPs. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
Ya, we have the same problem, we will be at 7 NAPs by the end of the month, and DIGEX does not meet our peering requirements. If I don't peer with DIGEX then our customers yell at us when it is a DIGEX problem.
Just curious, but what are your peering requirements? It sounds like UUNET doesn't meet either your or AGIS's peering requirements, given that they are only at MAE {E & W} and Sprint NAP. (I don't believe they are peering with anyone at MAE Houston other than Sesquinet..) I assume you'll turn off DIGEX peering and UUNET peering at the same time? I wonder when AGIS is turning off their UUNET peering.... -dorian
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
Ya, we have the same problem, we will be at 7 NAPs by the end of the month, and DIGEX does not meet our peering requirements. If I don't peer with DIGEX then our customers yell at us when it is a DIGEX problem.
What we could do is all cut peering say the first of the year and then DIGEX would need to buy transit or connect to more NAPs.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
I'm quite sure that DIGEX doesn't care a hoot whether they meet netrail's peering requirements. Even more so for ANS, MCI, Sprint, BBN, UUNET, PSI, Netcom, and some others I can think of. In fact, it doesn't appear that you're peering with them now, and until a few weeks ago you were only at MAE-East, while they were also at MAE-West and Pennsauken. Avi
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability? We did no such thing. We never had connectivity to you and one of your customers called us and requested that we fix it so that they could work with our content group. If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me. Thanks ---Cathy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cathy Wittbrodt @Home Network Network Manager 385 Ravendale Mountain View, CA 94043 Main Number: 415-944-7200 Direct: 415-944-7213
The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks. rob
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to unreachability?
We did no such thing. We never had connectivity to you and one of your customers called us and requested that we fix it so that they could work with our content group. If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me.
Thanks ---Cathy
------------------------------------------------------------------ Cathy Wittbrodt @Home Network Network Manager 385 Ravendale Mountain View, CA 94043 Main Number: 415-944-7200 Direct: 415-944-7213
In my opinion you are all overlooking one issue here. Our customers are the reason we exist and providing global connectivity to customers is important. Happy customers are important. If anyone forced you to peer with us, I would have to say it was your customer who called you up and requested that his company be able to access our network. The fellow I talked to at Exodus felt the way I do and believed that if one of his customers needed something that he was going to do his best to make it happen. Again, not to harp on this particular situation, I just want to express that many of these providers with the really strict peering policies have some very unhappy customers (I have talked to quite a few of them). They are unhappy because they can't get to all the destinations they need to. I think in the end the customers will vote by connecting elsewhere. Thanks! ---Cathy From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks. rob > > > > From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> > Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX > This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did > the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, > basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering > with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to > unreachability? > > We did no such thing. We never had connectivity to you > and one of your customers called us and requested that we fix it so > that they could work with our content group. If you would like to > discuss this further please feel free to contact me. > > Thanks > ---Cathy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Cathy Wittbrodt @Home Network > Network Manager 385 Ravendale > Mountain View, CA 94043 > Main Number: 415-944-7200 > Direct: 415-944-7213 > >
I agree completely with everything you stated. Now I promise to all those visually impaired, I will take this offline. Rob
In my opinion you are all overlooking one issue here. Our customers are the reason we exist and providing global connectivity to customers is important. Happy customers are important. If anyone forced you to peer with us, I would have to say it was your customer who called you up and requested that his company be able to access our network. The fellow I talked to at Exodus felt the way I do and believed that if one of his customers needed something that he was going to do his best to make it happen. Again, not to harp on this particular situation, I just want to express that many of these providers with the really strict peering policies have some very unhappy customers (I have talked to quite a few of them). They are unhappy because they can't get to all the destinations they need to. I think in the end the customers will vote by connecting elsewhere.
Thanks! ---Cathy
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks.
rob
> > > > From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> > Subject: Re: AGIS/DIGEX > This is all very interesting information. It seems at-home recently did > the same thing with us, as they stopped all transit and were not on CIX, > basically forcing us to peer with them. Is this the route to get peering > with the big players that will now evolve? Forced peering due to > unreachability? > > We did no such thing. We never had connectivity to you > and one of your customers called us and requested that we fix it so > that they could work with our content group. If you would like to > discuss this further please feel free to contact me. > > Thanks > ---Cathy > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Cathy Wittbrodt @Home Network > Network Manager 385 Ravendale > Mountain View, CA 94043 > Main Number: 415-944-7200 > Direct: 415-944-7213 > >
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Cathy Wittbrodt wrote:
In my opinion you are all overlooking one issue here. Our customers are the reason we exist and providing global connectivity to customers is important.
many of these providers with the really strict peering policies have some very unhappy customers (I have talked to quite a few of them). They are unhappy because they can't get to all the destinations they need to. I think in the end the customers will vote by connecting elsewhere.
I agree with you 100%. The ironic thing is that when a network adopts a very strict peering policy, they are limiting their *OWN* connectivity to something less than optimal. It's like refusing to play basebase unless you are allowed to run bases in your 4 wheeler. Sure it looks impressive to drive around the diamond, but the players on foot can maneuver so much faster that your wheels work to your disadvantage. My network has at least one path, sometimes more, to all Internet destinations. If it did not, we would have some very unhappy customers. When I seek peering, it's to improve connectivity not establish it. And connectivity improves equally on both sides. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:38:36 -0800 (PST) Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> alleged:
The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks.
It seems a bit insane that people are required to be at N peering points for provider x to peer with provider y. If provider x and y can't reach each but are both at a peering point then surely thats a good enough reason to peer? Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
It seems a bit insane that people are required to be at N peering points for provider x to peer with provider y. If provider x and y can't reach each but are both at a peering point then surely thats a good enough reason to peer?
Regards, Neil.
Well, except for those just "reaching the apex", most buy transit to those they don't peer with, so there's usually no *dis*connectivity - but there may indeed be highly suboptimal connectivity... Avi
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:03:38 -0500 (EST) Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com> alleged:
Well, except for those just "reaching the apex", most buy transit to those they don't peer with, so there's usually no *dis*connectivity - but there may indeed be highly suboptimal connectivity...
Indeed, an insane way to let the Internet grow IMO. Neil -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
Others have said this, but it really does seem like there needs to be pricing that allows for varying degrees of peering. It's a big jump from "you pay for every byte" to "you pay us nothing". There are providers who should fall between these extremes. -- (313) 741-4442 http://branch.com/ Jon Zeeff Branch Internet Services Inc. jon@branch.com *** WWW Hosting Services, WWW Site Development and the Branch Malls ***
Maybe a peering agreement that has settlements based on the number of NAP's you peer at? Peering at _no_ NAP's means paying full price with a decreasing scale down to nothing if you peer at 5 NAP's (or whatever the current hurdle is set at). Ed On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Jon Zeeff wrote:
Others have said this, but it really does seem like there needs to be pricing that allows for varying degrees of peering. It's a big jump from "you pay for every byte" to "you pay us nothing". There are providers who should fall between these extremes.
-- (313) 741-4442 http://branch.com/ Jon Zeeff Branch Internet Services Inc. jon@branch.com *** WWW Hosting Services, WWW Site Development and the Branch Malls ***
Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice) Professional Internet Services edm@nwnexus.WA.COM
Neil, You are assuming that the goal of all internet service providers is to have the best connectivity possible, without respect for cost, administrative overhead, or market strategy. If X is really really big, and Y is really really small, then perhaps it would benefit X to have Y as a paying customer instead of as a peer. The word peer implies equals, as it has so long been repeated. If provider X is missing 0.01% of the market share, and provider Y is missing 20% of the market share, who will be more upset, I ask.. -alan
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:38:36 -0800 (PST) Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net> alleged:
The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these. I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation. I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the particular situation between our networks.
It seems a bit insane that people are required to be at N peering points for provider x to peer with provider y. If provider x and y can't reach each but are both at a peering point then surely thats a good enough reason to peer?
Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
-- Alan Hannan Not Employed Networking, Ltd. email: alan@mindvision.com. phone: 402/488-0238
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:26:58 -0600 (CST) alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan) alleged:
You are assuming that the goal of all internet service providers is to have the best connectivity possible, without respect for cost, administrative overhead, or market strategy.
True :-)
If X is really really big, and Y is really really small, then perhaps it would benefit X to have Y as a paying customer instead of as a peer.
The word peer implies equals, as it has so long been repeated.
If provider X is missing 0.01% of the market share, and provider Y is missing 20% of the market share, who will be more upset, I ask..
Well I feel that the 2 providers mentioned are both reasonably sized enough to peer with each other, judging a peering policy on how many NAP's one is connected to is, in my opinion, the policy of the mad. Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Dorian R. Kim wrote:
This is inaccurate. DIGEX <-> AGIS peering sessions were up until 2-3 weeks ago. I believe DIGEX informed AGIS that their ANS transit was going to go away and it would cause connectivity problems if AGIS took down the peering sessions.
Yes, but this was not AGISs fault, DIGEX does not meet their peering requirements. It sucks, to start out connected to MAE-East, MAE-West, Ameritech NAP, CIX, PACBell, and Sprint, but that is what you need to do. I had the same problem, my new investors wanted to know why we were starting day one with full DS3s and connecting to 7 NAPs. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
Paul, I have been thinking about a couple of issues regarding the CIX Inter-exchange, and your comments would be appreciated: (1) CIX is an association of ISPs. The CIX Inter-exchange puts CIX in direct competition with its members (ISPs) for customers. Is there a contradiction here? (2) The CIX Inter-exchange has been used by some to bypass peering policies. I am wondering if the CIX Inter-exchange remains a viable option in the peering policy review. (3) Today there are quite a few inter-exchanges in the Bay Area that are superior (in terms of tech. and richness in connectivity) than the CIX Interexchange. Is it fair to say that the CIX Inter-exchange has fulfilled its historical mission and is no longer needed? -- Enke
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:31:13 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> To: nanog@merit.edu
[...] 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 ).
The CIX router is an very important member benefit and the members have consistantly voted to keep it, even though the board has tried to phase it out a couple of times. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin (who is running for the empty CIX board position, btw) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Enke Chen wrote:
Paul, I have been thinking about a couple of issues regarding the CIX Inter-exchange, and your comments would be appreciated:
(1) CIX is an association of ISPs. The CIX Inter-exchange puts CIX in direct competition with its members (ISPs) for customers. Is there a contradiction here?
(2) The CIX Inter-exchange has been used by some to bypass peering policies. I am wondering if the CIX Inter-exchange remains a viable option in the peering policy review.
(3) Today there are quite a few inter-exchanges in the Bay Area that are superior (in terms of tech. and richness in connectivity) than the CIX Interexchange. Is it fair to say that the CIX Inter-exchange has fulfilled its historical mission and is no longer needed?
-- Enke
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:31:13 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> To: nanog@merit.edu
[...] 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 ).
[Somebody]
[...] Since Digex is at too few NAPs to peer with AGIS, and they are not at the CIX, we see no routes from them.
[Paul Vixie]
CIX is taking new connections, either T1, PB-SMDS, or DEC-PAIX (FDDI/Ether).
[Enke Chen]
I have been thinking about a couple of issues regarding the CIX Inter-exchange, and your comments would be appreciated:
(1) CIX is an association of ISPs. The CIX Inter-exchange puts CIX in direct competition with its members (ISPs) for customers. Is there a contradiction here?
(2) The CIX Inter-exchange has been used by some to bypass peering policies. I am wondering if the CIX Inter-exchange remains a viable option in the peering policy review.
(3) Today there are quite a few inter-exchanges in the Bay Area that are superior (in terms of tech. and richness in connectivity) than the CIX Interexchange. Is it fair to say that the CIX Inter-exchange has fulfilled its historical mission and is no longer needed?
Enke, (1) CIX is a membership organization which facilitates voluntary connectivity between its members. CIX doesn't have a product or a service, it's a nonprofit industry trade association more or less on legal par with the California Egg Association. The contradiction is in your description not the facts. (2) If MCI doesn't like the routes CIX sends them, they should not accept those routes. If MCI doesn't want CIX to hear certain routes, they should not send them. If MCI derives no benefit from CIX, they should consider dropping either their CIX connection or their entire membership. (I hope that they don't -- the industry as a whole, which CIX's charter says it is here to do good things for, benefits from the kind of "peering policy bypass" that I think you're complaining about here.) (3) The other peering points are homogeneous. You need to buy a circuit from Pac Bell or MFS in order to join either of those peering points, and there is no level-3 connectivity. A lot of ISP's, especially international ones, find one or both of those requirements onerous. I do see a continuing mission for CIX, else I would not still be consulting for the association. In general, there is a mistaken view that L1/L2 exchanges can be cooperative but that L3 exchanges have to be competitive. Neither definition is accurate. Thanks for bringing these important issues to everyone's attention, I'm always glad to have a red carpet rolled out in front of my views on this subject. Paul
participants (14)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
Avi Freedman -
Bob Collie -
cathy＠home.net -
Deepak Jain -
Dorian R. Kim -
Ed Morin -
Enke Chen -
jon＠branch.net -
Nathan Stratton -
Neil J. McRae -
Paul A Vixie -
Robert Bowman -
Robert Laughlin