On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:45:47AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> -Bill
the CIX & STIX (as originally designed) models architecturally slightly
different than
what seems to be the case for EMIX and a few other tricks (PLDT comes
to mind) where
a telco is offering transit over its infrastructure. In the first two
cases, all
the participants (customers) fateshare ... the design was "layer 3"
peering, eg.
everyone terminates on a port on a common router, managed by the
friendly, neutral
telco/cooperative association.
Nearly everyone these days equates IX with a neutral "layer 2" fabric.
In a wide-area,
you are still "captive" to the transmission provider to "knit" the
disparate bits
into a single, cohesive whole.
--bill
