With VAN Consolidation rampant, are B2B message routing exchanges the answer to total reciprocity and delivery assurance?

Author’s note:

The most fecund source of utter baloney can be found at many places on the GXS website, that basically states, “a one vendor network is the only way to insure EDI messaging reliability”. Bull-oney. I think we have all learned an indelible lesson that multi-vendor, multi-provider markets (including messaging networks) which includes routing networks (like the internet) are the best architectural model to arise in the universe of IT, from both a reliability and economic perspective. I’m sure that the old GXS would like nothing better than to have its customers get everything from its network based services – messaging, translation, applications, maybe your medical insurance too. Maybe GXS would like to arrange marriages?

This article is about an access and routing model that was born in the early Internet years, when setting up routing gateways was a black art Рand telcos late to the Internet game started to get hungry again, formed a land rush, buying up many of the first mover IP backbone providers; this is when MCI bagged UUNET, leading to another  antitrust case.

Now, we have a tremendous amount of VAN consolidation with the OpenText deal, and this could be a good time to talk about the CIX, or Commercial Internet Exchange Model. CIX was formed as a shared peering exchange point, a membership organization, that allowed companies to get their foot in the Internet’s door – while the FCC was struggling to come to terms with the Telecom Reform Act of 1996. Ok, that ends my intro – on to the EDI Messaging Exchange Model:

Continue reading