ANS-CIX Interconnection

Jordan Becker becker at
Fri Oct 2 21:21:04 UTC 1992

Milo asks some good questions that I would like to address, from the
perspective of ANS as a general service provider.  These comments
should not be viewed to represent the interpretation of policy by
other organizations.  Also, although I think these are important
questions to be discussed, I think we are a bit off the topic of T3
network routing plans.

> Milo writes:
> One reason why I think some people are very interested in this issue
> of default routing to the NSF causing reachibility to CIX connected
> facilities is that as I understand it, there is a charge associated
> with the CO+RE service, which is supposed to go into some sort of pool
> to be distributed in various ways.  Now, if a regional doesn't sign
> the CO+RE agreement, but because of default routing sends IP packets
> to CIX connected sites to their local ENSS, will they be charged for
> this in some manner?

No, a regional using NSFNET backbone services does not pay ANS
anything, nor are they required to make any agreements to do so, even
if the packets from a regional using NSFNET services ends up
traversing the CIX due to default routing.  The regionals pointing
default would still be using NSFNET services and are presumed to abide
by the NSF AUP.

> If not, then why should any regional be a CO+RE
> subscriber?  Since they mostly point default at the ENSS already, and
> then they get connectivity without charge.

A regional might choose to become a CO+RE subscriber if they want a
commercial restriction free AUP and/or want to use the ANSNET as
transit to get the CIX. Costs are recovered from the CO+RE subscriber.
This cost recovery is used to defray the costs of the shared ANSNET
infrastructure that they use.  NSFNET users might get legitimate
benefit out of this broadened connectivity, and CO+RE subscribers will
be able to access a larger base of connected users.

> You see, I think you guys have the greatest reason to not have AS 1957
> routes installed in the routing tables of the various ENSS's whose
> members don't subscribe.  Otherwise, those attached AS's could use the
> CO+RE service, and without an agreement, you could not be compensated
> for this.  And I should point out that if you aren't compensated for
> this by the CIX folks (no settlements there) and by the regionals
> (because they just point default at you), then NSF would be placed in
> the position of supporting non-AUP traffic on resources it pays for.

ANS treats AS 1957 as CO+RE subscribers and puts funds in the
infrastructure pool on their behalf to cover the compensation for CIX
member networks use of ANSNET.  There is no cost recovery necessary
from regionals that use NSFNET services, even if they talk to CIX
networks (via defaults) as long as these regionals are required to
abide by the NSF AUP when using NSFNET services.

> Of course,
> there are limits that you have to deal with if you are using IP
> routers as the core of your switching fabric, but I won't go into that
> now... :-)

Neither will I :-).


More information about the NANOG mailing list