Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
Yes, and the entire phenomenon that occurs between ISPs in order to allow them to announce networks to each other is what is known as peering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is the correct technical term. An excerpt from the above: " Peering requires physical interconnection of the networks, an exchange of routing information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing protocol and is often accompanied by peering agreements of varying formality, from "handshake" to thick contracts." This is what happens at KIXP which I established in 2000 and at various IXPs that I have been training ISPs on and helping various countries around Africa build for the past 8 years. Best regards, Brian - Hide quoted text - On 8/27/08, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com> wrote: As promised earlier, .... Here's how it works. When a user types a website name into his browser or clicks "send" to launch an e-mail, a Domain Name System server produces an IP address for the destination. A router belonging to the user's ISP then consults a BGP table for the best route. That table is built from announcements, or "advertisements," issued by ISPs and other networks -- also known as Autonomous Systems, or ASes -- declaring the range of IP addresses, or IP prefixes, to which they'll deliver traffic. .... <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html> regards, On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote: > Clearly Brian I am was not referring to peering but something within. > I shall locate and extract the lines from my 6deploy notes and post. > > regards, > > > > --- On Thu, 8/14/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges >> To: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com >> Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke >> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 12:52 AM >> Alex, >> >> The term is not "announcing" it is known as >> "peering" >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as >> " >> is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate >> Internet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> >> networks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_network> >> for the purpose of >> exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. >> The pure >> definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender >> keeps all," meaning that >> neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, >> instead, each >> derives revenue from its own customers. >> " >> >> Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access >> affordable >> infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit >> arrangements >> where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too >> high. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex >> <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept >> where ISPs mutually >> > accept one another traffic without international >> transit (the concept >> > is called "announcing"). Simply put, such >> traffic never incurs >> > international transit costs. Question: Should this >> "part" of internet >> > cost consumers the same as costly international >> satellite? This >> > becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get >> locally hosted, >> > and for example where local content woes and comprises >> most traffic. >> > >> > Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace >> solutions that >> > "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as >> RASCOM 1 - the satellite now >> > in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer >> James Rege;) >> > potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ >> 800 million >> > annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local >> and regional IXPs >> > would assist (and less NATs please) >> > >> > Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch >> much except >> > affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end >> > principle"< >> > >> http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/ endtoend.txt> >> > should be removed from the network. They include >> privacy invading >> > techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or >> > >> DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> >> Trust me to >> > sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important >> aspect when >> > determining through whom your traffic passes. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini >> > <mwende.njiraini@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > In traditional telephony call termination >> revenues are shared between >> > > operators and are based on negotiated >> interconnection rates, in a >> > regulated >> > > environment, rather than the size and number of >> subscribers on the >> > network. >> > > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries >> for a long time have >> > > benefited from revenues generated from this >> international settlement >> > > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly >> being eroded by VoIP, which >> > is >> > > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat >> rate pricing of internet >> > bandwidth. >> > > The issue internet interconnection is based on >> the fact that >> > international >> > > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost >> peering with ISPs developing >> > > countries thus forcing them to incur the full >> cost of transmitting >> > > international traffic. What incentives need to >> be put in place to >> > encourage >> > > shared-cost peering? Content development? >> > > >> > > >> > > There is raging debate on "network >> neutrality"; with network operators >> > > seeking to price network access on the basis of >> utilization in a bid to >> > > manage network congestion. In the US, for >> example the recent Comcast >> > case >> > > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that >> Comcast 'discriminatory' >> > > network management practices were illegal. To >> overcome the challenge of >> > > network congestion several proposals have been >> made including the >> > > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint >> Cerf, Google's chief >> > > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs >> should "introduce >> > transmission >> > > caps allowing users to purchase access to the >> Internet at a given minimum >> > > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during >> times of congestion." >> > Net >> > > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to >> consider with reference >> > to >> > > the current developments in national and >> international fibre optic >> > > projects. >> > > >> > > References: >> > > >> > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Mwende >> > > >> > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. >> > > >> > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo >> <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day >> 1 or 2 themes, jst >> > remember >> > >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile >> today we should discuss one >> > of >> > >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail >> cost of Internet Service in >> > >> developing countries- the Internet >> Interconnection Charges (IIC, in >> > short) >> > >> >> > >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive >> but we could try and >> > understand >> > >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile >> Phone Interconnection Charges >> > and >> > >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone >> company, X with 8million customers >> > and >> > >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million >> customers. Each company is >> > supposed >> > >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating >> calls originating from the >> > >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger >> company X, can chose to >> > dictate >> > >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to >> terminate the 'Y' calls to >> > its >> > >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> > >> >> > >> This is losely similar to what is called >> Transit relationship on the >> > >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 >> and 2 Internet Backbone >> > >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how >> much the smaller networks in >> > >> developing countries need to pay in order to >> terminate their internet >> > >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other >> services into their >> > Network. >> > >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and >> other projects cannot escape >> > these >> > >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if >> you do not like their >> > >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take >> a walk into nowhere (read: >> > stay >> > >> offline). >> > >> >> > >> Another relationship does exist, the >> Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> > >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and >> company X both having equal or >> > >> similar number of customers/value e.g. >> 5million each. In such a >> > >> relationship, the two Internet >> Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> > >> charge each other anything. Traffic between >> the two is exchanged >> > >> reciprically for free but below each of this >> big Networks are the >> > smaller >> > >> networks (read African networks), that must >> pay Transit Charges. Put >> > >> bluntly, Africa and other developing >> countries are subsidizing Internet >> > >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> > >> >> > >> Many studies have been carried out to get us >> out of this fix such as the >> > >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but >> todate the status quo remains. >> > The >> > >> standard response has remained 'If it >> current interconnection models are >> > >> working, why should you try and fix >> them?' >> > >> >> > >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or >> proposals on this theme. >> > >> >> > >> walu. >> > >> >> > >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> > >> International Charging Arrangements for >> Internet Services, Module I, >> > >> ICAIS, p.3 >> > >> >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> > >> >> > >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> > >> >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing- act_130.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>
Glad you now understand that I know what peering is and was referring to a process within it. In relation to the discussion thread, while making my contribution I had in mind an earlier skunkworks discussion(30 reactions!) sparked by an article "Kenya IXP reduces connectivity costs, Internet speeds" here ... (30 April 2008) very practical relevance to end-users supposed cost savings (NOTE not questioned technical importance). My beef? The point I made was that too often and easily IXPs were overpraised (citing another skunkworks' expression of today "horse has been flogged to death (and back to life) countless times":) for their great technical ability to save on international transit bandwidth [to ISPs] but that those benefits need to be passed on to the consumers i.e. translating to cheaper costs and higher quality internet. That's all folks.... I rest this one here. Asante! On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <brian@caret.net> wrote:
Yes, and the entire phenomenon that occurs between ISPs in order to allow them to announce networks to each other is what is known as peering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is the correct technical term. An excerpt from the above: " Peering requires physical interconnection of the networks, an exchange of routing information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing protocol and is often accompanied by peering agreements of varying formality, from "handshake" to thick contracts." This is what happens at KIXP which I established in 2000 and at various IXPs that I have been training ISPs on and helping various countries around Africa build for the past 8 years. Best regards, Brian - Hide quoted text -
On 8/27/08, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com> wrote: As promised earlier, .... Here's how it works. When a user types a website name into his browser or clicks "send" to launch an e-mail, a Domain Name System server produces an IP address for the destination. A router belonging to the user's ISP then consults a BGP table for the best route. That table is built from announcements, or "advertisements," issued by ISPs and other networks -- also known as Autonomous Systems, or ASes -- declaring the range of IP addresses, or IP prefixes, to which they'll deliver traffic. .... <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html> regards,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> wrote: > Clearly Brian I am was not referring to peering but something within. > I shall locate and extract the lines from my 6deploy notes and post. > > regards, > > > > --- On Thu, 8/14/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges >> To: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com >> Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke >> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 12:52 AM >> Alex, >> >> The term is not "announcing" it is known as >> "peering" >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as >> " >> is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate >> Internet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> >> networks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_network> >> for the purpose of >> exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. >> The pure >> definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender >> keeps all," meaning that >> neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, >> instead, each >> derives revenue from its own customers. >> " >> >> Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access >> affordable >> infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit >> arrangements >> where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too >> high. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex >> <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept >> where ISPs mutually >> > accept one another traffic without international >> transit (the concept >> > is called "announcing"). Simply put, such >> traffic never incurs >> > international transit costs. Question: Should this >> "part" of internet >> > cost consumers the same as costly international >> satellite? This >> > becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get >> locally hosted, >> > and for example where local content woes and comprises >> most traffic. >> > >> > Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace >> solutions that >> > "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as >> RASCOM 1 - the satellite now >> > in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer >> James Rege;) >> > potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ >> 800 million >> > annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local >> and regional IXPs >> > would assist (and less NATs please) >> > >> > Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch >> much except >> > affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end >> > principle"< >> > >> http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> >> > should be removed from the network. They include >> privacy invading >> > techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or >> > >> DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> >> Trust me to >> > sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important >> aspect when >> > determining through whom your traffic passes. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini >> > <mwende.njiraini@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > In traditional telephony call termination >> revenues are shared between >> > > operators and are based on negotiated >> interconnection rates, in a >> > regulated >> > > environment, rather than the size and number of >> subscribers on the >> > network. >> > > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries >> for a long time have >> > > benefited from revenues generated from this >> international settlement >> > > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly >> being eroded by VoIP, which >> > is >> > > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat >> rate pricing of internet >> > bandwidth. >> > > The issue internet interconnection is based on >> the fact that >> > international >> > > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost >> peering with ISPs developing >> > > countries thus forcing them to incur the full >> cost of transmitting >> > > international traffic. What incentives need to >> be put in place to >> > encourage >> > > shared-cost peering? Content development? >> > > >> > > >> > > There is raging debate on "network >> neutrality"; with network operators >> > > seeking to price network access on the basis of >> utilization in a bid to >> > > manage network congestion. In the US, for >> example the recent Comcast >> > case >> > > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that >> Comcast 'discriminatory' >> > > network management practices were illegal. To >> overcome the challenge of >> > > network congestion several proposals have been >> made including the >> > > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint >> Cerf, Google's chief >> > > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs >> should "introduce >> > transmission >> > > caps allowing users to purchase access to the >> Internet at a given minimum >> > > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during >> times of congestion." >> > Net >> > > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to >> consider with reference >> > to >> > > the current developments in national and >> international fibre optic >> > > projects. >> > > >> > > References: >> > > >> > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Mwende >> > > >> > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. >> > > >> > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo >> <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day >> 1 or 2 themes, jst >> > remember >> > >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile >> today we should discuss one >> > of >> > >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail >> cost of Internet Service in >> > >> developing countries- the Internet >> Interconnection Charges (IIC, in >> > short) >> > >> >> > >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive >> but we could try and >> > understand >> > >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile >> Phone Interconnection Charges >> > and >> > >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone >> company, X with 8million customers >> > and >> > >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million >> customers. Each company is >> > supposed >> > >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating >> calls originating from the >> > >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger >> company X, can chose to >> > dictate >> > >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to >> terminate the 'Y' calls to >> > its >> > >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> > >> >> > >> This is losely similar to what is called >> Transit relationship on the >> > >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 >> and 2 Internet Backbone >> > >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how >> much the smaller networks in >> > >> developing countries need to pay in order to >> terminate their internet >> > >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other >> services into their >> > Network. >> > >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and >> other projects cannot escape >> > these >> > >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if >> you do not like their >> > >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take >> a walk into nowhere (read: >> > stay >> > >> offline). >> > >> >> > >> Another relationship does exist, the >> Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> > >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and >> company X both having equal or >> > >> similar number of customers/value e.g. >> 5million each. In such a >> > >> relationship, the two Internet >> Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> > >> charge each other anything. Traffic between >> the two is exchanged >> > >> reciprically for free but below each of this >> big Networks are the >> > smaller >> > >> networks (read African networks), that must >> pay Transit Charges. Put >> > >> bluntly, Africa and other developing >> countries are subsidizing Internet >> > >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> > >> >> > >> Many studies have been carried out to get us >> out of this fix such as the >> > >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but >> todate the status quo remains. >> > The >> > >> standard response has remained 'If it >> current interconnection models are >> > >> working, why should you try and fix >> them?' >> > >> >> > >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or >> proposals on this theme. >> > >> >> > >> walu. >> > >> >> > >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> > >> International Charging Arrangements for >> Internet Services, Module I, >> > >> ICAIS, p.3 >> > >> >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> > >> >> > >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> > >> >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...
Gakuru, Alex wrote:
Glad you now understand that I know what peering is and was referring to a process within it. In relation to the discussion thread, while making my contribution I had in mind an earlier skunkworks discussion(30 reactions!) sparked by an article "Kenya IXP reduces connectivity costs, Internet speeds" here ... (30 April 2008) very practical relevance to end-users supposed cost savings (NOTE not questioned technical importance). My beef? The point I made was that too often and easily IXPs were overpraised (citing another skunkworks' expression of today "horse has been flogged to death (and back to life) countless times":) for their great technical ability to save on international transit bandwidth [to ISPs] but that those benefits need to be passed on to the consumers i.e. translating to cheaper costs and higher quality internet. That's all folks....
eeehhh... not likely to happen if over 80% of the traffic still goes transit (or international) and only less than 20% is via peering. If we can move to where the ratios interchange or even 60% is peering and 40% is transit or a fifty fifty .. now would be talking.
participants (3)
-
Brian Munyao Longwe -
Gakuru, Alex -
Michuki Mwangi