[kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
Gakuru, Alex
alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 17:16:33 EAT 2008
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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet
> Interconnection Charges
> >> To: alex.gakuru at yahoo.com
> >> Cc: kictanet at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmail.com
>
>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list