The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma

Martin Lee Schoffstall schoff at
Wed Feb 5 03:47:42 UTC 1992

I've deferred responding publicly to the com-priv message since I hoped
others would.  But I will respond to this....

there isn't a routing "problem".   there are gigapackets/month running
through the CIX reliably, with little latency, and very inexpensively.

What vaf wants is some tuning for the high bandwidth path that he and
a very few others have by the grace of nsf and tax $'s.  it is a
reasonable request given that people don't want to ante up quite yet
for t3 cix interconnects.  This tuning to my knowledge is driven
by a fairly small % of the total CIX networks (10 out of 500?).

the t1/t3 interconnect problems (as reported) were a completely different
animal.  the "solution" has been to abandon the t1 in favor of the t3,
i have that in several email messages.  the t1/t3 interconnect problems
affected everyone for many months....

 Aside from CIX/NSFNET routing problems, we have seen some of the
 consequences of multiple backbones with the current T1 and T3 NSFNET
 backbones and the interconnect between the two.  That's how we find
 routes from the East Coast to the West Coast and back again, especially
 when the active interconnect is at SDSC.  The routing arbitrator in
 this case is the same as the operator of both backbones but that 
 doesn't help since the problems are fundamental to basic routing

More information about the NANOG mailing list