Re: Regulatory intervention (Redux: Who is a Tier 1?)

[Erik Haagsman <erik () we-dare net>]

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