North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points

  • From: Martin Hannigan
  • Date: Wed Feb 08 15:06:53 2006 
At 01:45 PM 2/8/2006, 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.
Here's the accurate cairo data:

- CRIX is DOA
- CAIX is the government sponsored replacement
-nile, Raya, Egynet, and others I can't
discuss.
- they are peering
- Regional IX

If you have a room full of providers who connect up to
a common switch and exchange something, I'd tend to
believe that it is an exchange. GRX, Layer3, etc.

I didnt disagree with you for the most part on the UAE,
I asked why I saw what I saw. Joe answered the technical
question and I found the political/technical choke point
for the UAE's access. Google can confirm that.

I can understand the frustration.


-M<




--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff Network Operations
[email protected]