From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Thu Feb 09 2006 - 05:19:14 EST
> > 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_.
It sounds like you are saying that an Internet eXchange is commonly
thought of as a place where peering takes place even though, semantically,
the words in the name do not have that meaning and do not even imply
that meaning. In hindsight, it would have been clearer to refer to these
places as peering exchanges however back in those days, the important
distinction wasn't between peering and transit, it was between commercial
and non-commercial traffic. So the CIX began to allow commercial networks
to exchange traffic because NSFNET would not provide transit to them.
Non-commercial NSFNET peers did get transit.
But back to EMIX. Maybe they do not offer any peering today
but is it true that they actively prohibit any companies
with routers at EMIX from peering? Maybe this is just one
of those growing pain situations in an area where the telco
monopoly is still strong, Internet usage is relatively low,
and the Internet is not providing value to the population
because they have other economic needs.
Is it really worthwhile arguing about what names are used
in a non-Western country where English is not the language
normally spoken?
--Michael Dillon
|
|
|