MIX

Sat Apr 6 21:21:19 UTC 1996

> >> 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.
> 
> >There is an MLPA available.  None of the participants have shown much
> >interest in signing it...nor have they made any objections to it.  Most
> 
> 	The PARTICIPANTS haven't objected.  The non-participants have.
> 	That's why _our_ [alternate] interconnect has NO blpas, NO
> 	mlpas, NO lawyer-paperwork, etc.  You show; you peer; you play.

So, are you assigning address space, and aggregating all the participants
below you, and forcing folks to use you as their sole point of connectivity?

If you are, then the fact that you do not have all ISPs in Tucson under you
and advertising a single CIDR block on their behalf proves my point about
forcing a business model.

If you are not, then my comment about how we are trying to solve a different
problem than the routing table also proves my other point.

> 	Ehud
> 
> p.s. Our interconnect is The Tucson Interconnect, not to be confused
>      with [ The Tucson ] NAP.

Dave

-- 
Dave Siegel		     Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking
(520)623-9663		     Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs
dsiegel at rtd.com		     User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, 
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/					for an ISP."