[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