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

info at ispa-drc.cd info at ispa-drc.cd
Sun Sep 13 12:34:39 EDT 2015 

Indeed, in some countries the implementation problems and the 
development of IXPs arises because of laws and regulations governing the 
telecommunications sector that do not define the IXP as a 
telecommunication community infrastructure that can facilitate the 
exchange free traffic.
This in the context of universal access while contributing to improved 
quality of service at the local, national and regional.

I think if efforts are undertaken in the sense that governments adopt 
this way of seeing things, significant progress will be observed.

Nico TSHINTU









Le 2015-09-12 17:53, Kyle Spencer a écrit :
> +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