William Allen Simpson
bsimpson at morningstar.com
Fri Apr 5 15:39:19 UTC 1996
> From: Dave Siegel <dsiegel at rtd.com>
> > How about you? Have you created one in _your_ metro?
> Yes, actually, but they solve a different problem ... bandwidth.
> It doesn't provide Internet connectivity, it doesn't assign IP addresses...
What's the point if it doesn't provide connectivity? Anything that is
topological in nature, and yet is not reflected in the routing and
address assignment, is detrimental to the Internet as a whole.
> though it could provide backup connectivity with the appropriate transit
> agreements in place between participating ISP's.
How? I certainly wouldn't want to add yet another peering arrangement
with every Tom, Dick and Harry that showed up at any regional
interconnect. One interconnect, one peering arrangement.
> This is the model that most of these exchanges are being built around.
> Anything else is "just a really big local ISP" and is imposing a business
> model upon a region worse than any FCC tarriff has done.
A business model that shafts everyone else on the net so that you can
make more money?
Better that everyone else refuse to accept routes through your AS, and
improve their routing table size thereby.
WSimpson at UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
More information about the NANOG