Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog 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
        discuss.
- 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.


-M<




--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
hannigan () renesys com

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]