mailing list archives
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points
From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan () renesys com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:05:34 -0500
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
- 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.
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
hannigan () renesys com
Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points Aaron Glenn (Feb 07)