Talk:Internet exchange point

message: Please read the following notes, before editing the Middle East section again:
- There was briefly a government-initiated IXP in Cairo, called the CR-IX, in 2002.  To the best of my knowlege, it was wholly defunct by 2004.  It was succeeded by a much quieter private-sector IXP, which currently has three participants, on 81.21.96.0/25.
- There is an IXP planned for Bahrain, called Gulf-IX, in the still-under-construction GatewayGulf datacenter.  With luck, it will be up sometime in mid-2007.  There is no other IXP in Bahrain.  The "Bahrain Internet Exchange" is a small government-owned transit provider.
- EMIX, the Emirates Internet Exchange, likewise, is a transit provider, not an IXP.  They'll tell you so themselves.  
There's also the small IXP in Tel Aviv, which hasn't changed much in a long time.  So: please only edit this section again if you have some good news for us. Bill Woodcock 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle East IXPs 

message: My understanding was that the three IXPs in China were state-controlled and operated in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai. See here.140.247.147.88 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese IXPs 

message: What about that huge exchange point in New York City? --Abdull 16:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: afaik the NYIIIX (New York Internet Exchange) is rather a small one. Have a look at the german page, there you see the traffic of Internet Exchange Points. -- Alvo 10:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York 

message: I think we should have an article that explains what an exchange point is. Plain and simple.
All other internet exchange points and their detailed infomation should be in different articles.
Ken
: Also, there are a several good listings of IXPs in the Internet: Packet Clearing House, Open Directory Project, Exchange Point Repository, BGP Forum, EuroGIX. Probably we dont need to maintain a list of IXPs in a wikipedia. In the german wikipedia, there have been artifcles about IXPs removed because they have been considered as not relevant in a encyclopedia. Regards -- Alvo 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm of mixed minds about this...  I run Packet Clearing House, and we've maintained the large directory of IXPs since about 1994 (well, it was only a couple, then, but it was equally complete), and put quite a bit of staff time into it.  At one level, it's redundant for us to also be trying to copy updates out to Wikipedia.  On the other hand, once or twice there have been people who've thought to post an update of some sort to Wikipedia before we've discovered it otherwise.  In general, though, I agree that differentiating definitions and directories is a good thing. Bill Woodcock 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong content in wrong page 

message: I understand that the term NAP is still used in Europe, eg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Exchange_Point and Google shows many hits. I think NAP should be included under IXP. Regards John John a s 10:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think there was already a discussion about that in: Talk:Network_access_point I think if there are no vote against it, I can try to merge the two articles and redirect NAP to IXP. Any comments? --Never stop exploring (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't hear _Neutral_ Access Point used much at all, honestly.  When people say "NAP," they mean "Network Access Point," in the historical or Latin-American senses, generally.  And I assume this is Marco? Anyway, yes, I'd support a merge. Bill Woodcock (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Access Point 

message: I've removed PIE from the list of IXPs. It does not appear to be an IX, just a telco-owned transit provider network. See e.g. . Compare Bahrain Internet Exchange, EMIX, and so forth. Will-h 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: On 6 June 2012 user Ál added a merge template suggesting that the NAP and IXP articles be merged. Other than the merge templates, I don't see any further discussion about or rational for the merge. 
For myself, I don't think a merge is a good idea. NAPs are largely historical now, while IXPs are current. It seems like adding historical information about NAPs to the IXP article would be just adding unnecessary clutter. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the merge template from the article. If other editors still feel that a marge is a good idea, we can continue the discussion at Talk:Network access point#Possible merge with IXP article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a good idea. I'm giving it a try as a new "History" section here.  If there's general agreement on both sides, then we'd turn "Network Access Point" and "NAP" into redirects to the IXP article, after deleting the old Network Access Point article.  NAPs are entirely deprecated, and are exclusively a historical subset of IXPs, so it seems appropriate, and if they're not a single article, there will be people who will find their way to the NAP article and not follow to the IXP article, and remain confused re context and scope.  Thus the rationale for the merge. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge with the NAP article 

message: Is anyone really wedded to the diagram on the bottom right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Connectivity_Distribution_%26_Core.svg ?  It's misleading in the sense that it features "tier" terminology heavily, as though that meant something specific or useful, and it implies that "tier 1" and "tier 3" ISPs don't peer at IXPs.  I'm pretty sure this does more harm than good.  Bill Woodcock (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not wedded to this particular diagram or its terminology. I do think that some sort of diagram is useful in this article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree with Jeff Ogden (W163), this sort of diagram is *not* useful in this article. Wonder if there is any good source or a better diagram from someone else, did you had something in mind Bill Woodcock?  --Never stop exploring (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just replaced the offending diagram.  If anyone disagrees, please pipe up, or revert, or whatever.  Thanks. Bill Woodcock (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inapplicable / misleading diagram