Middle Eastern Exchange Points

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Wed Feb 8 18:45:47 UTC 2006

      On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
    > Guys, are you being semantic? 

Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to 
mean, rather than the opposite.

    > 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_.  Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_ 
an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering, 
only with a single provider's commercial transit product.  The same is 
currently true throughout much of the Middle East.


More information about the NANOG mailing list