On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 14:51 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote: <snip> > >> Cogent, Open > >> Level(3), Not public > >> We Dare B.V., Open > >> > >> So, what did your member organization do to resolve this partition. > >> Cut off Level(3)? Sue them? > > > > > > That particular member organisation has a policy of not interfering with > > its members' peering policies. It expects its members to send packets > > only to people who explicitly asked for it over the shared > > infrastructure (via announcements of prefixes via BGP), and to pay their > > bills on time. > > > Arguably a very good thing. IXs shouldn't be in the "enforcement" > business. That's for governments.
Exactly the reason I don't want governments anywhere near an IX. Every network connected to an IX should be allowed to enforce it's own internal policies when connecting with other networks *without* a governmental body trying to enforce certain rules and regulations. One network only peers with a select few, the other only on basis of bandwidth profile and some with as many peers as possible. Without one telling the other what to do or someone sitting behind a desk trying to come up with a Grand Unified Peering Policy that everyone should adhere to. Fine by me. > (As you will remember, I was refuting his generalization that "private" > organizations are somehow preferable to "public" organizations. It has > always been my preference to argue with specifics in hand.) I never generalised, I merely pointed out that creating governmental IX's has nog benefits compared to the current IX's. AMS-IX, DE-CIX, LINX, etc. etc are open to everyone wanting to connect, that's public enough for me, without having to be goverment controlled. -- --- Erik Haagsman Network Architect We Dare BV Tel: +31(0)10-7507008 Fax: +31(0)10-7507005 http://www.we-dare.nl
