[kictanet] KEnic down-Basics of IXPs

[McTim]

Hi Badru,

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug> wrote:
> McTim
>
> Allow me to comment on your perception of failure.


Failure only in comparison to KIXP, not absolute failure.....sorry to
have ruffled your feathers.


>
> The UGIX was put up to keep local traffic local and save on bandwidth costs.
>
> Has the UG IX done so ?? Yes it has.

indeed, most of the time.  This week, for example, we have seen some
examples of operators sending their traffic to EU and back, and not
peering locally.


>
> Im of the school of thought that you do not need a Board and a full time office to make sure that an Ethernet switch is working and switching packets.

you correct it doesn't NEED it, but need and WANT are different things
originally, as you know it was to have a staff and active org behind,
it's just that operators weren't willing to pay the port charges to
support such an outfit.


>
> The switch is in a secure place and thus has never been compromised so why spend unnecessary many on extra security.
>
> The history of UIXP was due to the local industry politics at the time and thus we had a very open and non restrictive policy.

open to licensed operators only IIRC.

 We also went for the low cost route and thus have a free IX to anyone
who wants to peer as long as they can deliver their connectivity to
the IX.  I still believe that is the way to go.  And as longer as we
go that way we will have to sacrifice on some cosmetic addons which do
not enhance the flow of TCP IP packets.

To my mind, its not just about traffic flows, it's about value added
services.  Here in KE, we have root servers, NTP servers, an Akamai
node (I think, but am not 100% on that one), .com and .net servers,
route reflectors, looking glasses, a nascent CSIRT, etc.

I guess my point is that KIXP is more like LINX in London, or AMSIX in
Amsterdam than it is like UIXP.  I think this is a good thing, and
should be applauded.  My mail was in reaction to Robert who was
calling for more government involvement/control of peering in Kenya.
I think you would agree that this is not desirable.

 The IX is an Ethernet switch and it will always be that.  Yes we do
not have government intervention apart from the fact the the regulator
is providing free hosting for the IX.
>
> On power issue I would like to challenge again since if you look at stats over the period up time visa vi downtime we will be in the higher 90's.  but the again power is a major challenge across all industry in UG.

We both know that when the switch goes down, it may be many hours or
even days (historically) before anyone notices.  In the past,
customers of peers have noticed and taken it upon themselves to go and
reboot the switch after power losses.

>
> Lets have some fact based comparisons please.  I believe what is happening to KIXP is coping with growth.  It has become a victim of its own success and time for Kenya to think of a KIXP-2 with links to KIXP-1.

There is a redundant location now, AND a second, completely separate
peering mesh exists in Mombasa.  This is another value add that an
active KIXP/TESPOK brings.

-- 
Cheers,

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