[kictanet] The urgent case for a Regional Internet Exchange Point (RIXP)

[Harry Delano]

Hey McTim,

We got stats earlier on to this effect, gathered when efforts of a similar
nature 
were being undertaken

Apologies, we cannot rely on that, since clearly that was quite some time
back. 
I suppose now we could be talking of something close to 500GB,of data maybe
not 
even in a week's time, perhaps daily - my estimate.

I agree, it would be good to get some hard stats/feasibilities, as we
consider this.
However, I also do think we have grown of age and we need to wire up and
network 
Regionally as this would be the best direction we can take as an emerging
economic 
bloc.

Thanks,
Harry

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:31 PM
To: harry at comtelsys.co.ke
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] The urgent case for a Regional Internet Exchange
Point (RIXP)

Hi Harry,

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Harry Delano <harry at comtelsys.co.ke> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> Thanks, I definitely understand your point..

I'm not sure you do.


>
> What we are saying, and I suppose what everyone should be concerned 
> about is,if we got 10 - 30GB


Is this you as an enduser doing this much? or your corporate environment?  I
do about 1 GB per week.


 of
> data per week on average,why transport to Europe and back paying 
> transit costs in the process,

My point was those transit costs are paid already, in fact, in this era, we
("we" being the folks who have bought the fat pipes) pay for more bandwidth
than we can use at the moment.  I am suggesting that in the absence of hard
data about regional traffic flows (and I've been looking for this data for
several years), we are just speculating that regional interconnectivity is
urgent (or even needed).

when
> we should otherwise work to develop our Regional interconnectivity. 
> It's like saying some years earlier on, that we do not need a locl 
> exchange point like KIXP,

It just seems like its the same argument, its not.

 because
> it's cheaper to send traffic
> out and back.

but it wasn't cheaper at that point.

Keep local traffic, "Local". Simple. We cannot keep talking
> about regional intergration

sure we can.

> when such a small matter as inter-regional connectivity cannot be 
> sorted out.

It's not a small matter, believe me, I've tried to implement it.

>
> While, we still have a lot of content hosted, and accessed out there 
> it should never be lost on us that we similarly have a lot of 
> inter-Regional traffic,

I would greatly appreciate any hard data you have on this traffic.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel