State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true
Listers, I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me. Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
I agree with Barrack on this one. I wonder wouldn't it make more prudent sense to liberalise (away from the current Kenic monopoly) the Kenya ccTLD and have it open to other entrepreneurs? I am not sure there is any reason why a cartel should retain the right to run this critical resource at the expense of other Kenyans. Is it just me or someone else also sees the illogic of charging Ksh. 3000 for a domain in an era where other domain names are available for as little as Ksh.500. I know this has been said in this forum but isn't it time action was taken.Dr. PS? I believe this would make more sense than to have duplication of Exchange points at the expense of the taxpayers.Someone enlighten this forum. Regards, Oloo Khisa. From: kictanet-bounces+emmanuel.khisa=kadet.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+emmanuel.khisa=kadet.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Barrack Otieno Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 5:37 PM To: emmanuel.khisa@kadet.co.ke Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true Listers, I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me. Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
Hi Barrack, Speaking for self; let me try and explain some of the factors that trigger the establishment of IXPs. (am intentionally staying clear off the issue and instead providing background to hopefully enrich the follow-up discussions) 1) Cost of transit - if there's always going to be a high cost of buying transit capacity (buying access to other networks). This is often what we call buying upstream service from an international service provider 2) More than 3 ISPs in a market - If there's more than 3 providers in one market, it makes economic sense to bring down their costs by exchanging traffic destined to each in a place thats within their control and not controlled by their upstream provider. Most upstream providers wont give you a local and international bill for traffic exchange. If there are two providers, direct interconnects would be sufficient. 3) Open Other opportunities - Content hosting, content delivery and content creation will most often take root if theres a local market. IXPs serve as a local market where folks with content can access eyeballs at "peering" costs. Peering is often referred to as exchange of traffic between two networks at no fee. If the cost of transit is lower than that of peering and there are less than 3 providers in a market, the economic benefit of an IXP will be negligible. The question here is; what triggers more than one IXP in a market and whats defines the market boundary. IMHO the market boundary is often defined by the cost of leasing circuits. For instance the point where the cost of leasing a circuit of 1mbps from one point to another within a certain radius point A is often value X, beyond to radius point B the cost is value Y hence radius point A boundary is the market boundary. Having defined the market boundary and a prime example is Nairobi, would be worth to start the discussion on what would trigger having more than 1 IXP. At this stage, its worth getting to know that there are two main types of IXPs i.e non-profit and commercial IXPs. In addition, its important to know that ISPs' have is called peering policies. The peering policies basically define the rules of engagement for members at the IXP. The most common one are bilateral or multi-lateral peering policy. In bilateral it means each member will have to negotiate with every member at an IXP (IXP is not involved) in order to establish peering. In a multi-lateral it means every member is subject to the same peering policy i.e peer with everyone at the IXP. As you may have guessed it the bilateral peering is most popular and preferred peering policy at most IXPs. This allows for ISPs to selectively decide whom to peer with. As a result, in any market there are small and large players. The large players have the ability to selectively decide whom to peer with will leads to the small players buying transit from the large players. Since the cost of transit is often higher than that of peering, other IXPs will emerge to cater for those who cannot easily fit into the existing IXP. The key aspect for this new IXP will be the peering policy in place to attract membership. The new IXP can also take the shape of commercial or non-profit. Please take a look at www.pch.net and see how dense IXPs are in Europe. Some cities like Paris and London have more than 1 IXP operated by different organizations or competing IXPs and both commercial and non-profit. Consequently, IXPs in different markets are never directly interconnected and for this very same reason, competing IXPs in the same market would not be interconnected. As a result, its common to find an ISP participating in IXPs in different markets i.e in Nairobi and in London and also in other competing IXPs in the same market. For an ISP the more they can peer the lower their costs. Countries like South Africa have more than one IXP in different markets i.e one in Jburg, another in Grahamstown, and the recently re-established Capetown IXP. Other countries have many players (large and small) and with lots of content being created in those markets having more than one IXP is often feasible each attracting a different group of ISPs based on their peering policies. In conclusion, the key point to remember is that an IXP will remain viable if its able to reduce the cost of delivering packets from one network from another. If its expensive then the cost of delivering packets from one network to another will be same as transit costs and therefore diminish its own value. Unless the IXP is providing access to premium content that would otherwise be accessible via transit costs its less likely to attract membership. Lastly, an IXP is just a Switch. The question to have in mind is what attracts folks to come connect to your switch where there are more than one. I hope that gives sufficient background and info to enrich this discussion further. Regards, Michuki. Barrack Otieno wrote:
Listers,
I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me.
Regards
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com <http://www.afriregister.com> www.afriregister.co.ke <http://www.afriregister.co.ke> ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: michuki@swiftkenya.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/michuki%40swiftkenya.co...
Thanks Mich, Quiet enlightening i must admit, i wonder what is going to happen with all this mergers and acquisitions in the data market, lets adopt a wait and see attitude to see what happens in 2010. Regards On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com>wrote:
Hi Barrack,
Speaking for self; let me try and explain some of the factors that trigger the establishment of IXPs. (am intentionally staying clear off the issue and instead providing background to hopefully enrich the follow-up discussions)
1) Cost of transit - if there's always going to be a high cost of buying transit capacity (buying access to other networks). This is often what we call buying upstream service from an international service provider
2) More than 3 ISPs in a market - If there's more than 3 providers in one market, it makes economic sense to bring down their costs by exchanging traffic destined to each in a place thats within their control and not controlled by their upstream provider. Most upstream providers wont give you a local and international bill for traffic exchange. If there are two providers, direct interconnects would be sufficient.
3) Open Other opportunities - Content hosting, content delivery and content creation will most often take root if theres a local market. IXPs serve as a local market where folks with content can access eyeballs at "peering" costs. Peering is often referred to as exchange of traffic between two networks at no fee.
If the cost of transit is lower than that of peering and there are less than 3 providers in a market, the economic benefit of an IXP will be negligible.
The question here is; what triggers more than one IXP in a market and whats defines the market boundary. IMHO the market boundary is often defined by the cost of leasing circuits. For instance the point where the cost of leasing a circuit of 1mbps from one point to another within a certain radius point A is often value X, beyond to radius point B the cost is value Y hence radius point A boundary is the market boundary.
Having defined the market boundary and a prime example is Nairobi, would be worth to start the discussion on what would trigger having more than 1 IXP.
At this stage, its worth getting to know that there are two main types of IXPs i.e non-profit and commercial IXPs. In addition, its important to know that ISPs' have is called peering policies. The peering policies basically define the rules of engagement for members at the IXP. The most common one are bilateral or multi-lateral peering policy. In bilateral it means each member will have to negotiate with every member at an IXP (IXP is not involved) in order to establish peering. In a multi-lateral it means every member is subject to the same peering policy i.e peer with everyone at the IXP. As you may have guessed it the bilateral peering is most popular and preferred peering policy at most IXPs. This allows for ISPs to selectively decide whom to peer with.
As a result, in any market there are small and large players. The large players have the ability to selectively decide whom to peer with will leads to the small players buying transit from the large players. Since the cost of transit is often higher than that of peering, other IXPs will emerge to cater for those who cannot easily fit into the existing IXP. The key aspect for this new IXP will be the peering policy in place to attract membership. The new IXP can also take the shape of commercial or non-profit.
Please take a look at www.pch.net and see how dense IXPs are in Europe. Some cities like Paris and London have more than 1 IXP operated by different organizations or competing IXPs and both commercial and non-profit.
Consequently, IXPs in different markets are never directly interconnected and for this very same reason, competing IXPs in the same market would not be interconnected. As a result, its common to find an ISP participating in IXPs in different markets i.e in Nairobi and in London and also in other competing IXPs in the same market. For an ISP the more they can peer the lower their costs.
Countries like South Africa have more than one IXP in different markets i.e one in Jburg, another in Grahamstown, and the recently re-established Capetown IXP. Other countries have many players (large and small) and with lots of content being created in those markets having more than one IXP is often feasible each attracting a different group of ISPs based on their peering policies.
In conclusion, the key point to remember is that an IXP will remain viable if its able to reduce the cost of delivering packets from one network from another. If its expensive then the cost of delivering packets from one network to another will be same as transit costs and therefore diminish its own value. Unless the IXP is providing access to premium content that would otherwise be accessible via transit costs its less likely to attract membership. Lastly, an IXP is just a Switch. The question to have in mind is what attracts folks to come connect to your switch where there are more than one.
I hope that gives sufficient background and info to enrich this discussion further.
Regards,
Michuki.
Barrack Otieno wrote:
Listers,
I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me.
Regards
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com <http://www.afriregister.com> www.afriregister.co.ke <http://www.afriregister.co.ke> ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: michuki@swiftkenya.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/michuki%40swiftkenya.co...
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
Thanks Michuki, The Government has embarked on massive digital content development. Much of the commercial activity in the current KIXP is generated from government. We are pretty sure that practically all the operators will link up with the government for reasons you have comprehensively explained. Our intention is not to mess up KIXP but simply complement what is increasingly becoming essential. Ndemo Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:27:55 To: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true Hi Barrack, Speaking for self; let me try and explain some of the factors that trigger the establishment of IXPs. (am intentionally staying clear off the issue and instead providing background to hopefully enrich the follow-up discussions) 1) Cost of transit - if there's always going to be a high cost of buying transit capacity (buying access to other networks). This is often what we call buying upstream service from an international service provider 2) More than 3 ISPs in a market - If there's more than 3 providers in one market, it makes economic sense to bring down their costs by exchanging traffic destined to each in a place thats within their control and not controlled by their upstream provider. Most upstream providers wont give you a local and international bill for traffic exchange. If there are two providers, direct interconnects would be sufficient. 3) Open Other opportunities - Content hosting, content delivery and content creation will most often take root if theres a local market. IXPs serve as a local market where folks with content can access eyeballs at "peering" costs. Peering is often referred to as exchange of traffic between two networks at no fee. If the cost of transit is lower than that of peering and there are less than 3 providers in a market, the economic benefit of an IXP will be negligible. The question here is; what triggers more than one IXP in a market and whats defines the market boundary. IMHO the market boundary is often defined by the cost of leasing circuits. For instance the point where the cost of leasing a circuit of 1mbps from one point to another within a certain radius point A is often value X, beyond to radius point B the cost is value Y hence radius point A boundary is the market boundary. Having defined the market boundary and a prime example is Nairobi, would be worth to start the discussion on what would trigger having more than 1 IXP. At this stage, its worth getting to know that there are two main types of IXPs i.e non-profit and commercial IXPs. In addition, its important to know that ISPs' have is called peering policies. The peering policies basically define the rules of engagement for members at the IXP. The most common one are bilateral or multi-lateral peering policy. In bilateral it means each member will have to negotiate with every member at an IXP (IXP is not involved) in order to establish peering. In a multi-lateral it means every member is subject to the same peering policy i.e peer with everyone at the IXP. As you may have guessed it the bilateral peering is most popular and preferred peering policy at most IXPs. This allows for ISPs to selectively decide whom to peer with. As a result, in any market there are small and large players. The large players have the ability to selectively decide whom to peer with will leads to the small players buying transit from the large players. Since the cost of transit is often higher than that of peering, other IXPs will emerge to cater for those who cannot easily fit into the existing IXP. The key aspect for this new IXP will be the peering policy in place to attract membership. The new IXP can also take the shape of commercial or non-profit. Please take a look at www.pch.net and see how dense IXPs are in Europe. Some cities like Paris and London have more than 1 IXP operated by different organizations or competing IXPs and both commercial and non-profit. Consequently, IXPs in different markets are never directly interconnected and for this very same reason, competing IXPs in the same market would not be interconnected. As a result, its common to find an ISP participating in IXPs in different markets i.e in Nairobi and in London and also in other competing IXPs in the same market. For an ISP the more they can peer the lower their costs. Countries like South Africa have more than one IXP in different markets i.e one in Jburg, another in Grahamstown, and the recently re-established Capetown IXP. Other countries have many players (large and small) and with lots of content being created in those markets having more than one IXP is often feasible each attracting a different group of ISPs based on their peering policies. In conclusion, the key point to remember is that an IXP will remain viable if its able to reduce the cost of delivering packets from one network from another. If its expensive then the cost of delivering packets from one network to another will be same as transit costs and therefore diminish its own value. Unless the IXP is providing access to premium content that would otherwise be accessible via transit costs its less likely to attract membership. Lastly, an IXP is just a Switch. The question to have in mind is what attracts folks to come connect to your switch where there are more than one. I hope that gives sufficient background and info to enrich this discussion further. Regards, Michuki. Barrack Otieno wrote:
Listers,
I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me.
Regards
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com <http://www.afriregister.com> www.afriregister.co.ke <http://www.afriregister.co.ke> ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: michuki@swiftkenya.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/michuki%40swiftkenya.co...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke ---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Q On 12/28/09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Listers,
I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me.
Regards
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
-- Sent from my mobile device
@paqaqa On 12/28/09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Listers,
I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me.
Regards
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno
-- Sent from my mobile device
Hi, The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of which membership is by invitation. GIXP is essential for security and also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers. KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls you back to routing through the internet. If KIXP wants to disprove me let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links to the exchange point. The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive international gateways. Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see the routing that forces many of us to host overseas. Dr. Ndemo and his team need to move quickly to find a way to optimise use of the International gateways by keeping local traffic local. Regards Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696 --- On Mon, 28/12/09, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> Subject: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true To: robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Monday, 28 December, 2009, 14:36 Listers, I was going through an article in the East African standard with the above mentioned title by the CEO of KIXP published on Sunday Dec 2009 in the East African Standard, am wondering is there a business case other than the security considerations highlighted that justifies the GIXP and if we could be allowed to access it or is it classified info?, in addition the writer has mentioned the Strengths of KIXP however i would also appreciate to know the weaknesses since they might justify the need for GIXP bearing in mind the fact that we are just coming out of the woods in so far as monopolies are concerned as i try to digest the article in any case having gone through http://www.bgp4.as/internet-exchanges it is evident there are a few developed countries with more that one Exchange point eg South Africa , the US, Sweden, Singapore, Russia and the UK, somebody educate me. Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 +254202498789 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com www.afriregister.co.ke ICANN accredited registrar. Skype: barrack.otieno -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/robertyawe%40yahoo.co.u...
Hi Robert, Please see my comments inline. This time am wearing my KIXP CTO hat on :) robert yawe wrote:
Hi,
The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of which membership is by invitation.
The above is not accurate - in anycase KIXP has tried to upload its license requirement to connect only those operators licensed by CCK to be Internet or Data service providers. Something in my humble opinion that needs a review to allow any organization with content to be able to connect i.e content providers etc. GIXP is essential for security and
also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers.
To start with KIXP provides a Layer 2 service like most other IXPs in the world. Security in terms of access to the layer 2 infrastructure is provided at all times. However our inability to connect everyone is a limitation of the existing license requirement and not that of KIXP.
KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls you back to routing through the internet.
The specifics are very important here - we do not provide mail routing. We provide a layer 2 infrastructure for interconnection. That means ISPs come to KIXP instead of having direct links to every other ISP, but they all have a single link to a single location. They use BGP protocol to announce their own prefixes to all those at KIXP and receive the prefixes (IP address blocks) of everyone else announcing at the facility. IP addresses can originate and receive all known and unknown internet services/protocols. Thus with KIXP providing a Switch (layer 2 service) we have no ability to filter based on protocol or other since its a layer 2 service. Therefore protocol policies is not possible in a layer 2 service. If KIXP wants to disprove me
let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links to the exchange point.
Please check on the kixp website for a listing of all this - its public information www.kixp.or.ke under membership - we provide the data available i.e Name, Status, ASN, EtherIP allocated to them at KIXP and who their infrastructure provider is. The aggregate traffic statistic is also available i have attached the current weeks aggregate traffic and past 12 months as well. For obvious reasons, i.e i doubt if any of our members would appreciate us disclosing the capacity of their link to the KIXP is or what the composition of their traffic is to a public mailing list. Am sure you would equally not be pleased if your provider publicly published your traffic composition on any public website. I once again emphasize there's no protocol policing at the KIXP we provide a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service. We also dont publish how much capacity they have but we do monitor individually.
The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive international gateways.
If you carefully read my previous post, you will understand what a market boundary is - you will further see why its economically viable to have an IXP in Nairobi and another in Mombasa and any other market boundary that can exist in the country/region. As to who runs the IXP thats an open discussion and i placed some discussion points in the previous email (commercial or non-profit). For instance, KIXP was formed by the ISPs and as such is run by the ISP association. If the KRA and others peer at the KIXP which is valuable to them. One important aspect to have in mind is that for anyone to peer at a facility, trust is a key concern - do your members trust you enough that you are not going to be biased with the way you treat them. In any case do they have a say on how the facility is run?. Please remember that the ISP business is quite competitive hence trust issues are rife and cannot be ignored.
Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see the routing that forces many of us to host overseas.
If you have bandwidth limitations between one ISP to another not going via KIXP, please check with that ISP, they have what it takes to be at the KIXP (license and access to infrastructure) to have good speeds available. For your information we monitor members links and advise them when they fail, run close to the allowed threshold etc. Here's my traceroute using Instaconnect/Igowireless to Jambo.co.ke which is Jambonet. My ISP is on Seacom and i would presume TKL is on TEAMS. The trace is via KIXP and the latencies are quite acceptable to me Last login: Wed Jan 6 11:19:49 on ttys010 Mich:~ michuki$ traceroute -n www.jambo.co.ke traceroute to www.jambo.co.ke (212.49.70.11), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.0.1.1 1.825 ms 1.670 ms 9.838 ms 2 41.190.232.233 52.833 ms 84.094 ms 63.567 ms 3 41.190.235.254 76.717 ms 59.312 ms 141.762 ms 4 198.32.143.79 109.559 ms * 97.589 ms 5 10.10.0.8 135.833 ms 44.089 ms 89.653 ms 6 212.49.70.11 109.201 ms !<10> 101.042 ms !<10> 111.535 ms !<10> Mich:~ michuki$ I have similar traces to other networks which i can share - by the way i live in a place called Kinoo on Naivasha Road, just before Kikuyu on wimax solution. It works just fine for me. If you wish you can ask folks on skunkworks to do their traces and submit their results, they will be alot similar. The bottom line is, if an ISP has a limited capacity via KIXP you need to push them to upgrade it. In some instances an ISP can fail to announce all its prefixes at KIXP - we have no way of enforcing this because its likely their peering policy or other decision. As such, the impact of this will be felt across the entire network. Hope that helps. Regards, Michuki.
Thanks Michuki for pointing out this misunderstood issue. Regards Sammy On 1/6/10 11:34 AM, "Michuki Mwangi" <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote:
Hi Robert,
Please see my comments inline. This time am wearing my KIXP CTO hat on :)
robert yawe wrote:
Hi,
The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of which membership is by invitation.
The above is not accurate - in anycase KIXP has tried to upload its license requirement to connect only those operators licensed by CCK to be Internet or Data service providers. Something in my humble opinion that needs a review to allow any organization with content to be able to connect i.e content providers etc.
GIXP is essential for security and
also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers.
To start with KIXP provides a Layer 2 service like most other IXPs in the world. Security in terms of access to the layer 2 infrastructure is provided at all times. However our inability to connect everyone is a limitation of the existing license requirement and not that of KIXP.
KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls you back to routing through the internet.
The specifics are very important here - we do not provide mail routing. We provide a layer 2 infrastructure for interconnection. That means ISPs come to KIXP instead of having direct links to every other ISP, but they all have a single link to a single location. They use BGP protocol to announce their own prefixes to all those at KIXP and receive the prefixes (IP address blocks) of everyone else announcing at the facility. IP addresses can originate and receive all known and unknown internet services/protocols. Thus with KIXP providing a Switch (layer 2 service) we have no ability to filter based on protocol or other since its a layer 2 service. Therefore protocol policies is not possible in a layer 2 service.
If KIXP wants to disprove me
let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links to the exchange point.
Please check on the kixp website for a listing of all this - its public information www.kixp.or.ke under membership - we provide the data available i.e Name, Status, ASN, EtherIP allocated to them at KIXP and who their infrastructure provider is.
The aggregate traffic statistic is also available i have attached the current weeks aggregate traffic and past 12 months as well.
For obvious reasons, i.e i doubt if any of our members would appreciate us disclosing the capacity of their link to the KIXP is or what the composition of their traffic is to a public mailing list. Am sure you would equally not be pleased if your provider publicly published your traffic composition on any public website.
I once again emphasize there's no protocol policing at the KIXP we provide a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service. We also dont publish how much capacity they have but we do monitor individually.
The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive international gateways.
If you carefully read my previous post, you will understand what a market boundary is - you will further see why its economically viable to have an IXP in Nairobi and another in Mombasa and any other market boundary that can exist in the country/region. As to who runs the IXP thats an open discussion and i placed some discussion points in the previous email (commercial or non-profit).
For instance, KIXP was formed by the ISPs and as such is run by the ISP association. If the KRA and others peer at the KIXP which is valuable to them. One important aspect to have in mind is that for anyone to peer at a facility, trust is a key concern - do your members trust you enough that you are not going to be biased with the way you treat them. In any case do they have a say on how the facility is run?. Please remember that the ISP business is quite competitive hence trust issues are rife and cannot be ignored.
Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see the routing that forces many of us to host overseas.
If you have bandwidth limitations between one ISP to another not going via KIXP, please check with that ISP, they have what it takes to be at the KIXP (license and access to infrastructure) to have good speeds available. For your information we monitor members links and advise them when they fail, run close to the allowed threshold etc.
Here's my traceroute using Instaconnect/Igowireless to Jambo.co.ke which is Jambonet. My ISP is on Seacom and i would presume TKL is on TEAMS. The trace is via KIXP and the latencies are quite acceptable to me
Last login: Wed Jan 6 11:19:49 on ttys010 Mich:~ michuki$ traceroute -n www.jambo.co.ke traceroute to www.jambo.co.ke (212.49.70.11), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.0.1.1 1.825 ms 1.670 ms 9.838 ms 2 41.190.232.233 52.833 ms 84.094 ms 63.567 ms 3 41.190.235.254 76.717 ms 59.312 ms 141.762 ms 4 198.32.143.79 109.559 ms * 97.589 ms 5 10.10.0.8 135.833 ms 44.089 ms 89.653 ms 6 212.49.70.11 109.201 ms !<10> 101.042 ms !<10> 111.535 ms !<10> Mich:~ michuki$
I have similar traces to other networks which i can share - by the way i live in a place called Kinoo on Naivasha Road, just before Kikuyu on wimax solution. It works just fine for me. If you wish you can ask folks on skunkworks to do their traces and submit their results, they will be alot similar. The bottom line is, if an ISP has a limited capacity via KIXP you need to push them to upgrade it. In some instances an ISP can fail to announce all its prefixes at KIXP - we have no way of enforcing this because its likely their peering policy or other decision. As such, the impact of this will be felt across the entire network.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Michuki.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: sammy@opensystems.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/sammy%40opensystems.co....
Mich, Yawe et al, my only comment arises from the broad understanding that IXPs (Internet eXchange Points) are building blocks or concentration points for Internet traffic. Traditional growth/concentration patterns(IXPs) have often followed an open and trusting relationship between the connecting parties. Obviously a "Government IXP" will not be obliged to be open nor trusting to non-government players. Is this a bad thing for the growth of the internet in Kenya? Its too early to say, but definately it is a big blow the the Kenya-IXP which will obviously lose a big chunk of "goverment" traffic to the Government-IXP. I was involved in some IXP research a while back and if one has time they can go through the paper @ www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=127 walu. --- On Wed, 1/6/10, Sammy Buruchara <buruchara@mac.com> wrote: From: Sammy Buruchara <buruchara@mac.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 5:58 PM Thanks Michuki for pointing out this misunderstood issue. Regards Sammy On 1/6/10 11:34 AM, "Michuki Mwangi" <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote:
Hi Robert,
Please see my comments inline. This time am wearing my KIXP CTO hat on :)
robert yawe wrote:
Hi, The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of which membership is by invitation.
The above is not accurate - in anycase KIXP has tried to upload its license requirement to connect only those operators licensed by CCK to be Internet or Data service providers. Something in my humble opinion that needs a review to allow any organization with content to be able to connect i.e content providers etc.
GIXP is essential for security and
also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers.
To start with KIXP provides a Layer 2 service like most other IXPs in the world. Security in terms of access to the layer 2 infrastructure is provided at all times. However our inability to connect everyone is a limitation of the existing license requirement and not that of KIXP.
KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls you back to routing through the internet.
The specifics are very important here - we do not provide mail routing. We provide a layer 2 infrastructure for interconnection. That means ISPs come to KIXP instead of having direct links to every other ISP, but they all have a single link to a single location. They use BGP protocol to announce their own prefixes to all those at KIXP and receive the prefixes (IP address blocks) of everyone else announcing at the facility. IP addresses can originate and receive all known and unknown internet services/protocols. Thus with KIXP providing a Switch (layer 2 service) we have no ability to filter based on protocol or other since its a layer 2 service. Therefore protocol policies is not possible in a layer 2 service.
If KIXP wants to disprove me
let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links to the exchange point. Please check on the kixp website for a listing of all this - its public information www.kixp.or.ke under membership - we provide the data available i.e Name, Status, ASN, EtherIP allocated to them at KIXP and who their infrastructure provider is.
The aggregate traffic statistic is also available i have attached the current weeks aggregate traffic and past 12 months as well.
For obvious reasons, i.e i doubt if any of our members would appreciate us disclosing the capacity of their link to the KIXP is or what the composition of their traffic is to a public mailing list. Am sure you would equally not be pleased if your provider publicly published your traffic composition on any public website.
I once again emphasize there's no protocol policing at the KIXP we provide a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service. We also dont publish how much capacity they have but we do monitor individually.
The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive international gateways.
If you carefully read my previous post, you will understand what a market boundary is - you will further see why its economically viable to have an IXP in Nairobi and another in Mombasa and any other market boundary that can exist in the country/region. As to who runs the IXP thats an open discussion and i placed some discussion points in the previous email (commercial or non-profit).
For instance, KIXP was formed by the ISPs and as such is run by the ISP association. If the KRA and others peer at the KIXP which is valuable to them. One important aspect to have in mind is that for anyone to peer at a facility, trust is a key concern - do your members trust you enough that you are not going to be biased with the way you treat them. In any case do they have a say on how the facility is run?. Please remember that the ISP business is quite competitive hence trust issues are rife and cannot be ignored.
Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see the routing that forces many of us to host overseas.
If you have bandwidth limitations between one ISP to another not going via KIXP, please check with that ISP, they have what it takes to be at the KIXP (license and access to infrastructure) to have good speeds available. For your information we monitor members links and advise them when they fail, run close to the allowed threshold etc.
Here's my traceroute using Instaconnect/Igowireless to Jambo.co.ke which is Jambonet. My ISP is on Seacom and i would presume TKL is on TEAMS. The trace is via KIXP and the latencies are quite acceptable to me
Last login: Wed Jan 6 11:19:49 on ttys010 Mich:~ michuki$ traceroute -n www.jambo.co.ke traceroute to www.jambo.co.ke (212.49.70.11), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.0.1.1 1.825 ms 1.670 ms 9.838 ms 2 41.190.232.233 52.833 ms 84.094 ms 63.567 ms 3 41.190.235.254 76.717 ms 59.312 ms 141.762 ms 4 198.32.143.79 109.559 ms * 97.589 ms 5 10.10.0.8 135.833 ms 44.089 ms 89.653 ms 6 212.49.70.11 109.201 ms !<10> 101.042 ms !<10> 111.535 ms !<10> Mich:~ michuki$
I have similar traces to other networks which i can share - by the way i live in a place called Kinoo on Naivasha Road, just before Kikuyu on wimax solution. It works just fine for me. If you wish you can ask folks on skunkworks to do their traces and submit their results, they will be alot similar. The bottom line is, if an ISP has a limited capacity via KIXP you need to push them to upgrade it. In some instances an ISP can fail to announce all its prefixes at KIXP - we have no way of enforcing this because its likely their peering policy or other decision. As such, the impact of this will be felt across the entire network.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Michuki.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: sammy@opensystems.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/sammy%40opensystems.co....
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
Hi Walu, See my comments inline, Walubengo J wrote:
my only comment arises from the broad understanding that IXPs (Internet eXchange Points) are building blocks or concentration points for Internet traffic.
Indeed, see them as a commodity market, where anyone can participate. The only thing being traded here is content. Barter (peering) and ordinary trade (transit and fee-based peering) are the main forms of exchange mechanisms that take place. Traditional growth/concentration patterns(IXPs) have
often followed an open and trusting relationship between the connecting parties. Obviously a "Government IXP" will not be obliged to be open nor trusting to non-government players.
This will have to be the policy of the IXP - remember the peering policy determines the folks you attract to the facility. Just like in a commodity market if it does not trade in perishables, you can expect that potential traders will all go to a different market that accepts their goods.
Is this a bad thing for the growth of the internet in Kenya? Its too early to say, but definately it is a big blow the the Kenya-IXP which will obviously lose a big chunk of "goverment" traffic to the Government-IXP. I was involved in some IXP research a while back and if one has time they can go through the paper @
From my initial understanding, again i have not looked at the revised tender document for the GIXP, i was under the impression that the GIXP will be connected to the KIXP. If this is still the case, then it adds value to the KIXP. The reason being ISPs connect to the end-users who need to reach the e-govt content. For them to do so, it means they have to pass through the KIXP to reach the GIXP.
On the other hand if the GIXP will not be directly connected to the KIXP then it means traffic will flow as it does today i.e via transit. This also has no negative impact to the KIXP as well. However, in this configuration, the ISPs will definitely loose the inter-ministry traffic revenue. They will still hold the end-user traffic and since not all end-users are connected to one ISP, it means that the KIXP will continue to serve its purpose of keeping the traffic local for the benefit of all. Let me try and explain how. Today, most Govt agencies/ministries procure internet services from different ISPs in the market today. All traffic in and out of Ministry X will go through their ISP. If traffic is coming from an end-user, served by a different ISP, then the traffic will go via KIXP to the Ministries X ISP and to the Ministry and vise versa (transit). In addition, This is the same path that inter-ministry traffic follows which am sure you can deduce the concerns that are bound to rise as a result (transit). The only instance where the KIXP will loose a big chunk of the traffic to the GIXP is if by design all ISPs will be required to connect at the GIXP individually for access to Govt content. Now if you think about this the GIXP model will inadvertently break its own role since not only will the ISP be loosing inter-ministry traffic, it will have to pay for a circuit to the GIXP and deliver end-user traffic as peering (which now is paid for through transit). Now if you recall my earlier email on IXPs, peering, big players and small players. Well this is one of such, ISPs like having the choice to choose whom to peer with. If they would rather provide you with transit than peer with you - then thats what they will do - its all in their business model. As such, IMHO its less likely that any ISP will peer at the GIXP since they would want to keep being profitable in the interconnection ecosystem. In conclusion Walu, its not too early to discuss this, in any case am pleased to see this discussion going on since its addressing the issue of Interconnection. Interconnection is one of those areas where very few talk about yet it makes the internet what it is. HTH Michuki.
Dear Caroline, This is a very short notice. Can you send the questions so that I respond to them online? Ndemo.
Mr. Ndemo,
Happy New Year! I hope you are well.
We are working on a story about Digital Video Broadcasting for our February issue. The objective of the story is to inform our readership what digital television is all about and what the migration from analogue to digital will involve. We have already spoken to David Waweru (KBC) and Daniel Obam. Tomorrow we will be interviewing Francis Wangusi of CCK to find out about the Broadcasting regulations.
To cap the story, we would like you to give us the big picture, what Kenyans should expect, the role of the government and the business opportunities available. Kindly give us an interview at your earliest convenience. The interview should take a maximum of 30mints. We will be going to press next week Tuesday.
Kind regards,
CK
CAROLE Kimutai|EDITOR|MANAGEMENT Journal|LOCATION: Lutheran Plaza 2nd floor, Nyerere Road opposite St Pauls Chapel |TEL: +254 020 2445600, 2445555 |DIRECT LINE: 020-2535277|CELL: +254 722 560 241|EMAIL: ckimutai@kim.ac.ke <mailto:ckimutai@kim.ac.ke>
One cannot too soon forget his errors and misdemeanors. To dwell long upon them is to add to the offense. ::: Henry David Thoreau <http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/henry-david-thoreau/ind ex.htm> :::
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Michuki, When we first mooted the idea of GIXP, we clearly stated that it was going to provide redudance to KIXP. Our role is not to destroy the private sector. However, there are things in Government you MUST have a fall back on. Ndemo
Hi Walu,
See my comments inline,
Walubengo J wrote:
my only comment arises from the broad understanding that IXPs (Internet eXchange Points) are building blocks or concentration points for Internet traffic.
Indeed, see them as a commodity market, where anyone can participate. The only thing being traded here is content. Barter (peering) and ordinary trade (transit and fee-based peering) are the main forms of exchange mechanisms that take place.
Traditional growth/concentration patterns(IXPs) have
often followed an open and trusting relationship between the connecting parties. Obviously a "Government IXP" will not be obliged to be open nor trusting to non-government players.
This will have to be the policy of the IXP - remember the peering policy determines the folks you attract to the facility. Just like in a commodity market if it does not trade in perishables, you can expect that potential traders will all go to a different market that accepts their goods.
Is this a bad thing for the growth of the internet in Kenya? Its too early to say, but definately it is a big blow the the Kenya-IXP which will obviously lose a big chunk of "goverment" traffic to the Government-IXP. I was involved in some IXP research a while back and if one has time they can go through the paper @
From my initial understanding, again i have not looked at the revised tender document for the GIXP, i was under the impression that the GIXP will be connected to the KIXP. If this is still the case, then it adds value to the KIXP. The reason being ISPs connect to the end-users who need to reach the e-govt content. For them to do so, it means they have to pass through the KIXP to reach the GIXP.
On the other hand if the GIXP will not be directly connected to the KIXP then it means traffic will flow as it does today i.e via transit. This also has no negative impact to the KIXP as well. However, in this configuration, the ISPs will definitely loose the inter-ministry traffic revenue. They will still hold the end-user traffic and since not all end-users are connected to one ISP, it means that the KIXP will continue to serve its purpose of keeping the traffic local for the benefit of all.
Let me try and explain how. Today, most Govt agencies/ministries procure internet services from different ISPs in the market today. All traffic in and out of Ministry X will go through their ISP. If traffic is coming from an end-user, served by a different ISP, then the traffic will go via KIXP to the Ministries X ISP and to the Ministry and vise versa (transit).
In addition, This is the same path that inter-ministry traffic follows which am sure you can deduce the concerns that are bound to rise as a result (transit).
The only instance where the KIXP will loose a big chunk of the traffic to the GIXP is if by design all ISPs will be required to connect at the GIXP individually for access to Govt content. Now if you think about this the GIXP model will inadvertently break its own role since not only will the ISP be loosing inter-ministry traffic, it will have to pay for a circuit to the GIXP and deliver end-user traffic as peering (which now is paid for through transit).
Now if you recall my earlier email on IXPs, peering, big players and small players. Well this is one of such, ISPs like having the choice to choose whom to peer with. If they would rather provide you with transit than peer with you - then thats what they will do - its all in their business model. As such, IMHO its less likely that any ISP will peer at the GIXP since they would want to keep being profitable in the interconnection ecosystem.
In conclusion Walu, its not too early to discuss this, in any case am pleased to see this discussion going on since its addressing the issue of Interconnection. Interconnection is one of those areas where very few talk about yet it makes the internet what it is.
HTH
Michuki.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Dr. Ndemo, et al, I fully agree with you on the reasons for having the GIXP especially when it comes to its role addressing the Governments concerns. IMHO i believe there are clarifications that just need to be made - thats what am trying to do in the long posts i have sent thus far. My contributions are mainly out to enlighten and also provide information hoping that we can avoid potential pitfalls in the process. Regards, Michuki bitange@jambo.co.ke wrote:
Michuki, When we first mooted the idea of GIXP, we clearly stated that it was going to provide redudance to KIXP. Our role is not to destroy the private sector. However, there are things in Government you MUST have a fall back on.
Ndemo
Hi Walu,
See my comments inline,
Walubengo J wrote:
my only comment arises from the broad understanding that IXPs (Internet eXchange Points) are building blocks or concentration points for Internet traffic. Indeed, see them as a commodity market, where anyone can participate. The only thing being traded here is content. Barter (peering) and ordinary trade (transit and fee-based peering) are the main forms of exchange mechanisms that take place.
Traditional growth/concentration patterns(IXPs) have
often followed an open and trusting relationship between the connecting parties. Obviously a "Government IXP" will not be obliged to be open nor trusting to non-government players.
This will have to be the policy of the IXP - remember the peering policy determines the folks you attract to the facility. Just like in a commodity market if it does not trade in perishables, you can expect that potential traders will all go to a different market that accepts their goods.
Is this a bad thing for the growth of the internet in Kenya? Its too early to say, but definately it is a big blow the the Kenya-IXP which will obviously lose a big chunk of "goverment" traffic to the Government-IXP. I was involved in some IXP research a while back and if one has time they can go through the paper @
From my initial understanding, again i have not looked at the revised tender document for the GIXP, i was under the impression that the GIXP will be connected to the KIXP. If this is still the case, then it adds value to the KIXP. The reason being ISPs connect to the end-users who need to reach the e-govt content. For them to do so, it means they have to pass through the KIXP to reach the GIXP.
On the other hand if the GIXP will not be directly connected to the KIXP then it means traffic will flow as it does today i.e via transit. This also has no negative impact to the KIXP as well. However, in this configuration, the ISPs will definitely loose the inter-ministry traffic revenue. They will still hold the end-user traffic and since not all end-users are connected to one ISP, it means that the KIXP will continue to serve its purpose of keeping the traffic local for the benefit of all.
Let me try and explain how. Today, most Govt agencies/ministries procure internet services from different ISPs in the market today. All traffic in and out of Ministry X will go through their ISP. If traffic is coming from an end-user, served by a different ISP, then the traffic will go via KIXP to the Ministries X ISP and to the Ministry and vise versa (transit).
In addition, This is the same path that inter-ministry traffic follows which am sure you can deduce the concerns that are bound to rise as a result (transit).
The only instance where the KIXP will loose a big chunk of the traffic to the GIXP is if by design all ISPs will be required to connect at the GIXP individually for access to Govt content. Now if you think about this the GIXP model will inadvertently break its own role since not only will the ISP be loosing inter-ministry traffic, it will have to pay for a circuit to the GIXP and deliver end-user traffic as peering (which now is paid for through transit).
Now if you recall my earlier email on IXPs, peering, big players and small players. Well this is one of such, ISPs like having the choice to choose whom to peer with. If they would rather provide you with transit than peer with you - then thats what they will do - its all in their business model. As such, IMHO its less likely that any ISP will peer at the GIXP since they would want to keep being profitable in the interconnection ecosystem.
In conclusion Walu, its not too early to discuss this, in any case am pleased to see this discussion going on since its addressing the issue of Interconnection. Interconnection is one of those areas where very few talk about yet it makes the internet what it is.
HTH
Michuki.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Hi, Thanks for the graph, since you are being transparent can you provide us with additional information that will give us some confidence that KIXP but meet the demands of keeping local traffic local. - Maximum throughput achievable - Services allowed to peer - Capacity of each member to the exchange point - Redundancy in the event of failure - Burst capability. Regards PS. On the GIXP it is quite justified let KIXP deal with the rest of us Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696 --- On Wed, 6/1/10, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote: From: Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true To: "robert yawe" <robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, 6 January, 2010, 8:34 Hi Robert, Please see my comments inline. This time am wearing my KIXP CTO hat on :) robert yawe wrote:
Hi, The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of which membership is by invitation.
The above is not accurate - in anycase KIXP has tried to upload its license requirement to connect only those operators licensed by CCK to be Internet or Data service providers. Something in my humble opinion that needs a review to allow any organization with content to be able to connect i.e content providers etc. GIXP is essential for security and
also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers.
To start with KIXP provides a Layer 2 service like most other IXPs in the world. Security in terms of access to the layer 2 infrastructure is provided at all times. However our inability to connect everyone is a limitation of the existing license requirement and not that of KIXP.
KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls you back to routing through the internet.
The specifics are very important here - we do not provide mail routing. We provide a layer 2 infrastructure for interconnection. That means ISPs come to KIXP instead of having direct links to every other ISP, but they all have a single link to a single location. They use BGP protocol to announce their own prefixes to all those at KIXP and receive the prefixes (IP address blocks) of everyone else announcing at the facility. IP addresses can originate and receive all known and unknown internet services/protocols. Thus with KIXP providing a Switch (layer 2 service) we have no ability to filter based on protocol or other since its a layer 2 service. Therefore protocol policies is not possible in a layer 2 service. If KIXP wants to disprove me
let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links to the exchange point. Please check on the kixp website for a listing of all this - its public information www.kixp.or.ke under membership - we provide the data available i.e Name, Status, ASN, EtherIP allocated to them at KIXP and who their infrastructure provider is.
The aggregate traffic statistic is also available i have attached the current weeks aggregate traffic and past 12 months as well. For obvious reasons, i.e i doubt if any of our members would appreciate us disclosing the capacity of their link to the KIXP is or what the composition of their traffic is to a public mailing list. Am sure you would equally not be pleased if your provider publicly published your traffic composition on any public website. I once again emphasize there's no protocol policing at the KIXP we provide a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service. We also dont publish how much capacity they have but we do monitor individually.
The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive international gateways.
If you carefully read my previous post, you will understand what a market boundary is - you will further see why its economically viable to have an IXP in Nairobi and another in Mombasa and any other market boundary that can exist in the country/region. As to who runs the IXP thats an open discussion and i placed some discussion points in the previous email (commercial or non-profit). For instance, KIXP was formed by the ISPs and as such is run by the ISP association. If the KRA and others peer at the KIXP which is valuable to them. One important aspect to have in mind is that for anyone to peer at a facility, trust is a key concern - do your members trust you enough that you are not going to be biased with the way you treat them. In any case do they have a say on how the facility is run?. Please remember that the ISP business is quite competitive hence trust issues are rife and cannot be ignored.
Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see the routing that forces many of us to host overseas.
If you have bandwidth limitations between one ISP to another not going via KIXP, please check with that ISP, they have what it takes to be at the KIXP (license and access to infrastructure) to have good speeds available. For your information we monitor members links and advise them when they fail, run close to the allowed threshold etc. Here's my traceroute using Instaconnect/Igowireless to Jambo.co.ke which is Jambonet. My ISP is on Seacom and i would presume TKL is on TEAMS. The trace is via KIXP and the latencies are quite acceptable to me Last login: Wed Jan 6 11:19:49 on ttys010 Mich:~ michuki$ traceroute -n www.jambo.co.ke traceroute to www.jambo.co.ke (212.49.70.11), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.0.1.1 1.825 ms 1.670 ms 9.838 ms 2 41.190.232.233 52.833 ms 84.094 ms 63.567 ms 3 41.190.235.254 76.717 ms 59.312 ms 141.762 ms 4 198.32.143.79 109.559 ms * 97.589 ms 5 10.10.0.8 135.833 ms 44.089 ms 89.653 ms 6 212.49.70.11 109.201 ms !<10> 101.042 ms !<10> 111.535 ms !<10> Mich:~ michuki$ I have similar traces to other networks which i can share - by the way i live in a place called Kinoo on Naivasha Road, just before Kikuyu on wimax solution. It works just fine for me. If you wish you can ask folks on skunkworks to do their traces and submit their results, they will be alot similar. The bottom line is, if an ISP has a limited capacity via KIXP you need to push them to upgrade it. In some instances an ISP can fail to announce all its prefixes at KIXP - we have no way of enforcing this because its likely their peering policy or other decision. As such, the impact of this will be felt across the entire network. Hope that helps. Regards, Michuki.
Robert, robert yawe wrote:
Thanks for the graph, since you are being transparent can you provide us with additional information that will give us some confidence that KIXP but meet the demands of keeping local traffic local.
- Maximum throughput achievable
Maximum throughput is subject to far too many factors that you need to provide me with specifics i.e between which two points?. If its between two ISPs then its subject to the link capacity they both have to the KIXP. If ISP A has a 10Mbps link to KIXP and ISP B has a 1mbps link to KIXP what do you presume the max throughput will be?. However, the KIXP infrastructure can support in excess of 3Gbps of traffic. Remember its layer 2 switching and nothing else.
- Services allowed to peer
Peering is not IP service based - please refer my previous emails. Peering is based on IP prefixes (using BGP) and not protocols. KIXP provides a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service.
- Capacity of each member to the exchange point
Let me explain how the KIXP works. Each ISP (peering member) has a router physically located at the KIXP. This router has to interfaces. One interface is connected to the KIXP Switch (ethernet port) the second interface is connected to the infrastructure provider of choice (can be serial,ethernet, fiber etc) and links back to a router located in their respective office/pop. The KIXP Switch port has 3 configurations 10Mbps, 100Mbps and 1Gbps. Each peering member selects their port of choice based on their needs. The same decision is applied when they (each ISP) engage an infrastructure provider to lease the circuit/link back to their respective office/pop Therefore the information on the capacity of each member to the exchange point is information that KIXP may be privy to by virtual of our trust relationship with our members. Its however not information thats KIXP will keep in its records. Consequently, we cannot disclose this information unless we have express permission by our members to do so. Since you have access to the list of members at the KIXP, and are interested to know what the capacity of each members is, please contact them am certain they will be more helpful. On the average the link capacities start from 512Kbps to 1Gbps. We dont have requests for 10Gbps but we are planning on having Switch port support that available in the near future.
- Redundancy in the event of failure
- Power backup is 14hrs (battery system), - backup switches - backup route-servers (each member peers with two route-servers) - redundant cooling - Alternative peering location from primary location Most importantly should the KIXP fail completely since everything is on BGP (a dynamic routing protocol) it defaults to the next best path available to reach the network. Please note that the ISPs links back to their offices will fail often enough. As such, BGP protocol that runs for all members will realise this and converge to the best alternative route without any human interference. The convergence takes place in under 30 seconds. You are welcome to visit the facility to verify this at your convenience.
- Burst capability.
This is not a service that can be provided at layer 2. As a result its not a feature available at KIXP. Regards, Michuki.
participants (8)
-
Barrack Otieno -
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Emmanuel Khisa -
Michuki Mwangi -
Nyagitari Bosire -
robert yawe -
Sammy Buruchara -
Walubengo J