[Bp_ixps] ITU Workshop on IXPs and ITU Council Working Group - IXP Discussion
info at ispa-drc.cd
info at ispa-drc.cd
Sat Sep 12 10:39:29 EDT 2015
Dear All,
After analysis of exchanges, the problem is at the level of
understanding of the concept "IXP", then I suggest the following:
- Define an IXP as telecommunications infrastructure whose main activity
is to facilitate peering;
- Ensure wide dissemination of the IXP concept.
Nico Tshintu
Le 2015-09-11 18:55, Chip Sharp (chsharp) a écrit :
> See below…
>
>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Bastiaan Goslings
>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gael,
>>
>> Thanks a lot - well done.
>>
>> I’m not sure though I understand ‘the point that Marilyn raised’. I
>> assume it’s about the
>>
>> 'What I wanted to comment on is whether you will capture -- and I
>> think you're saying "yes" -- whether you will capture the different
>> dynamics and impact on costs when an I- -- when there are multiple IXP
>> choices in a country which provide multiple access routes external to
>> the country versus an IXP -- a single IXP in a country which can
>> dramatically affect the cost of national and local traffic, when there
>> are ISPs connecting to it but there may only be one choice for the
>> international connection.
>> Will you capture that? Those different examples?’
>
> I think that might be a transcription error because it doesn’t really
> make sense. It seems to be confusing international transit with IXPs.
>
>> An IXP does not offer international connectivity. That is, if we take
>> the basic technical functionality an IXP performs as a starting point.
>> As described in the draft. A definition so you will - see also
>> http://www.ix-f.net/ixp-definition.html
>>
>> So adding more IXPs in a country does not ‘provide multiple access
>> routes external to the country’. And that therefor is not a reason to
>> argue for ‘multiple IXP choices in a country’.
>
> I agree that IXPs don’t generally offer international connectivity,
> but there are some nuances to this. In general transit, including
> international transit, isn’t offered through an IXP. There are
> occasions when transit providers might locate in the same building as
> an IXP. If a traffic and business analysis makes sense a provider
> from one country might join an IXP in a different country and peer
> with ISPs at that IXP. In this case, there is international
> connectivity for peering traffic. Another case that can confuse the
> issue is when an ISP leases bandwidth to building housing an IXP in
> another country and interconnects at that IXP, but also purchases
> transit from a nearby transit provider (e.g., in same building). In
> that case there is international connectivity, but the transit traffic
> isn’t running through the IXP.
>
> All of the above requires a regulatory environment that allows it to
> happen (e.g., allows cross-border connectivity) and would also require
> a solid business case.
>
> Another case would be when the switching fabric of the IXP extends
> across borders in which the IXP would “offer” international
> connectivity. I don’t know of any operational examples of this case,
> but am including it for completeness.
>
> IMO, having multiple IXPs in a country depends on the requirements of
> the country (e.g., size, traffic mix, connectivity patterns, market
> environment) and local market dynamics.
>
>> (Of course, one can force networks to join an IXP and mandate them to
>> purchase international connectivity through it from the incumbent. Who
>> might be running the IXP together with local government and/or the
>> regulator. Even if that means you effectively can shut down the
>> internet in a country, that does not mean an IXP is an internet ‘kill
>> switch’ per se)
>
> Technically, I suppose that could be considered an IXP but I’ve always
> thought of it as another form of transit provider.
> FWIW, the above scenario isn’t farfetched.
>
> Chip
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bastiaan
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 22:45, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gael -
>>>
>>> Thank you for this.
>>>
>>> Re the point that Marilyn has raised: We also can draw upon an
>>> article that Ariel Glazier just tweeted about re Cabase and we have
>>> some pricing data in our LAC IXP Study.
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the info from Ariel in Spanish ;)
>>> http://www.cronista.com/itbusiness/El-trafico-de-Internet-se-duplico-en-el-ultimo-ano-20150908-0010.html
>>>
>>> Looking forward to chatting tomorrow. Thank you to you and Wim for
>>> attending the meeting. And, a thank you to the team working in the
>>> Secretariat that are cc’d here.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jane
>>>
>>> From: Gael Hernandez <gael.hernandez at asitic.net>
>>> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:40 PM
>>> To: Bijal Sanghani <bijal at euro-ix.net>
>>> Cc: Jane <coffin at isoc.org>, Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle at drmv.be>, Carl
>>> Lars GAHNBERG <CGAHNBERG at unog.ch>, Brian Gutterman
>>> <briangutterman at gmail.com>, Luis BOBO GARCIA <LBOBOGARCIA at unog.ch>,
>>> "bp_ixps at intgovforum.org" <bp_ixps at intgovforum.org>
>>> Subject: Re: ITU Workshop on IXPs and ITU Council Working Group - IXP
>>> Discussion
>>>
>>> Hi Bijal and group,
>>>
>>> Yes, I attended the session on inter-sessional work during the MAG
>>> meeting last week in Paris. I had the opportunity to give an update
>>> on the progress of the group. You can find the transcript in
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/preparatory-process-2015/registration-september-2015/paris-igf-open-consultations-3-sep-2015
>>> (look for Gael with Ctrl-F, unless you want to know more about the
>>> other best practice forums).
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, attendees were quite happy to hear from the group's
>>> progress and our ability to have something (a document) ready to
>>> discuss in the BPF session at the IGF meeting in Joao Pessoa.
>>>
>>> The intervention triggered several remarks, all of them interesting
>>> but I'm summarising the ones that I know we are already planning to
>>> cover in some way or another:
>>>
>>> Mark Carvell from the UK government requested that the document
>>> addresses government approaches to policy and regulatory issues,
>>> particularly in regards of establishing the right environment. I
>>> think we're good on that item.
>>>
>>> Michael Nelson from Cloudflare insisted in providing concrete data
>>> and examples on competitive and less competitive environment (he
>>> pointed to CloudFlare's CEO blog post discussing the specific
>>> situation in Australia already acknowledged in the document).
>>>
>>> There was a suggestion by Marilyn Cade on capturing the dynamics and
>>> impact on costs when there are multiple IXP choices in a country, as
>>> opposed to having only one. In my opinion, we should be able to point
>>> at the conclusions made in reports already published (for instance,
>>> the ISOC study on Nigeria and Kenya) even if there are not focussing
>>> on the unique/multiple aspect that she mentioned.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps the group to follow on the process.
>>>
>>> We will discuss more tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Bijal Sanghani <bijal at euro-ix.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jane,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update and keeping us informed.
>>>>
>>>> Gael, did you attend the meeting in Brussels we talked about during
>>>> the last IXP IGF-BP call?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Bijal
>>>>
>>>>> On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:15, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> HI Everyone -
>>>>>
>>>>> Some updated info about the ITU work on Best Practices for IXPs.
>>>>>
>>>>> See the two agendas for ITU Activities on 28 September.
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.30-11.00: ITU-D/ITU-T workshop
>>>>> 11.30-12.30 and 14.30 – 17.30: Session of the CWG Internet
>>>>>
>>>>> I am headed to Geneva next week for ITU-D Study Group 1 work. IXPs
>>>>> will be discussed in the context of providing helpful data to
>>>>> countries on IXPs. I will let the group know how that proceeds and
>>>>> how others may contribute to the work. A report will be put
>>>>> together that includes IXPs, what they are, organizations working
>>>>> on developing them, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Jane
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle at drmv.be>
>>>>> Date: Monday, August 31, 2015 at 11:25 AM
>>>>> To: Luis BOBO GARCIA <LBOBOGARCIA at unog.ch>, Brian Gutterman
>>>>> <briangutterman at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: Bijal Sanghani <bijal at euro-ix.net>, Jane <coffin at isoc.org>,
>>>>> Carl Lars GAHNBERG <CGAHNBERG at unog.ch>, Constance Bommelaer
>>>>> <bommelaer at isoc.org>, gael Hernandez desa
>>>>> <gael.hernandez at asitic.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: IXP Best Practices
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Brian and Luis,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find attached the text to go up on the Review platform for
>>>>> the BPF IXPs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>> Wim
>>>>>
>>>>> <IXPs_Workshop_Geneva-15_Draft_Agenda (28 Sept
>>>>> Workshop).pdf><ITU_CWG_OpenPhysConsult_Agenda (28 Sept).docx>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gaël Hernández I Director ASITIC I M: +31 624129876 I T: +31
>>> 702116441 I Follow me on Twitter I Connect with me on LinkedIn
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bp_ixps mailing list
>>> Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org
>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bp_ixps mailing list
>> Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ixps mailing list
> Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org
More information about the Bp_ixps
mailing list