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

Kyle Spencer kyle at stormzero.com
Sat Sep 12 12:53:35 EDT 2015 

+1

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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