At 07:19 PM 9/3/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this alongside the existing proposal we have on the table. I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or whatever)
s/ixp/small isp/
i.e. the small isps want to appear independed from their upstream(s). the discussion over this has been going on nigh a decade. so what makes an ixp's business so special they warrant special treatment?
I believe there is a difference, An IXP is a facilitating infrastructure delivering services to all ISPs connected or to be connected. Linkage in any way to one or more of its members might harm the neutrality of the exchange towards its other members. For AMS-IX:
AMS-IX is a non-profit, neutral and independent association, meaning that it has no bias as to who connects
For LINX
A neutral, not-for-profit partnership between Internet Service Providers globally, LINX provides a physical interconnection for its members to exchange Internet traffic through co-operative peering agreements
I believe that in both cases "neutral" and "no bias to.." will be harmed if IXP address space (in any way, for the exchange infrastructure as well as for the services infrastructure like web server, e-mail etc) is related to a limited set of its customers. - Henk