[kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true

[Michuki Mwangi]

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 at 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 at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> This message was sent to: bitange at 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" 
> 
> 
>