[kictanet] The urgent case for a Regional Internet ExchangePoint (RIXP)
harry at comtelsys.co.ke
Mon Jun 7 23:13:43 EAT 2010
Thanks Brian, for the clarification and the graph..
I suppose, since we now have some OFC, interconnectivity already to some
would be able to transmit much more, when we aggregate..
From: kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On
Behalf Of Brian Munyao Longwe
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:48 PM
To: harry at comtelsys.co.ke
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] The urgent case for a Regional Internet
Attached please find a graph reporting on "local" data transfer between 7
ISPs in Tanzania and 5 ISPs in Kenya via SimbaNet's "EAIXP". This was back
in February last year - when I visited the control centre in Dar es Salaam.
As you will see, the graph only reports 1 week traffic - but the aggregate
(IN + OUT) is about 10Gb of traffic.
A key point to note is that this was via a slow satellite link running at
I can only imagine what we would see if the interlink was OFC!
There is definitely a critical need for this issue to be looked at closely
and in great detail.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:31 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Harry Delano <harry at comtelsys.co.ke> wrote:
> 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.
> 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).
> 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.
> 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
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.
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
This message was sent to: blongwe at gmail.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at
Brian Munyao Longwe
e-mail: blongwe at gmail.com
cell: + 254 722 518 744
blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the KICTANet