nanog mailing list archives
Re: ix's & prefix registration
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh () outblaze com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:10:09 +0530
Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) writes on 10/15/2003 6:37 AM:
This is FUD. To my knowledge, your assertions have been clarifiedby nixi folks. https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/india-gii/2003-June/004357.html
you mean
(in fact...i can dare to add here that none of the connecting ISP's has raised an issue on the multilateral peering clause...on the contrary some ISP' want that..)..so there...
Yeah, sure. *Some* ISPs want mandatory multilateral, I'm sure.
I agree with you that some of nixi exchange policies are not good. But,they also dropped other dangerous policies ( e.g., nixi acting as a govt mandated transit provider.) Also, in nixi case, exchange policies are set by/to/for Indian ISPs (represented in nixi committee.) So, rather than throwing clichés, you should participate in their mailing list and convince them with constructive feedback.
Man, a lot of us have given them our opinions, you know that. If they ask us (or better still, ask someone with clue like Bill Woodcock et al) then great. If they go on dancing to their own tune, very well then.
The other "ideas" were dropped after a lot of hard work on several people's part.
srs -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
Current thread:
- ix's & prefix registration joshua sahala (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Bill Woodcock (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Joe Abley (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Nipper, Arnold (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Jess Kitchen (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Niels Bakker (Oct 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 14)
- Re: ix's & prefix registration Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 15)