mailing list archives
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points
From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:11:46 +0000
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:45:47AM -0800, 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.
the CIX & STIX (as originally designed) models architecturally slightly different than
what seems to be the case for EMIX and a few other tricks (PLDT comes to mind) where
a telco is offering transit over its infrastructure. In the first two cases, all
the participants (customers) fateshare ... the design was "layer 3" peering, eg.
everyone terminates on a port on a common router, managed by the friendly, neutral
Nearly everyone these days equates IX with a neutral "layer 2" fabric. In a wide-area,
you are still "captive" to the transmission provider to "knit" the disparate bits
into a single, cohesive whole.
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points Aaron Glenn (Feb 07)