[Bp_ixps] ITU Workshop on IXPs and ITU Council Working Group - IXP Discussion

Jane Coffin coffin at isoc.org
Sat Sep 12 12:47:38 EDT 2015 

One thing to consider.
If you say ³telecommunication infrastructure² that allows for some
governments to take IXPs under laws related to ³telecommunications² and
interconnection rules may apply.   If you apply some telecommunication
interconnection regulations in that case - you may force all peers to peer
(mandatory m-lat peering) vs optional decisions at the IXP by the
community.  Just a thought.

On 9/12/15, 10:39 AM, "Bp_ixps on behalf of info at ispa-drc.cd"
<bp_ixps-bounces at intgovforum.org on behalf of info at ispa-drc.cd> wrote:

>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 belowŠ
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Bastiaan Goslings
>>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Gael,
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot - well done.
>>> 
>>> I¹m not sure though I understand Œthe point that Marilyn raised¹. I
>>> assume it¹s 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?¹
>> 
>> I think that might be a transcription error because it doesn¹t 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 Œprovide multiple access
>>> routes external to the country¹. And that therefor is not a reason to
>>> argue for Œmultiple IXP choices in a country¹.
>> 
>> I agree that IXPs don¹t generally offer international connectivity,
>> but there are some nuances to this.   In general transit, including
>> international transit, isn¹t 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
>> isn¹t 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 ³offer² international
>> connectivity.  I don¹t 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 Œkill
>>> switch¹ per se)
>> 
>> Technically, I suppose that could be considered an IXP but I¹ve always
>> thought of it as another form of transit provider.
>> FWIW, the above scenario isn¹t 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 cc¹d 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-se
>>>>ptember-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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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