[kictanet] Local IXP (KIXP) peering and Local traffic

[Job Muriuki]

​​


>
> Just because peering happens at an exchange – unless the **data** is
> local to the exchange – the ISP peering still has to bear the cost of
> delivering that content from the rest of their network to the peering
> point.  Meaning – in the case of a large international ISP – if they peer
> locally but the majority of their content sits in Europe or the US or
> somewhere else – and there is no equitable traffic exchange with other
> parties (so the ingress/egress traffic volumes are way out of sync) peering
> can also be a very costly affair in that regard.
>
>
>
​This part I understand very well hence the need to inprove on local
traffic and make it affordable by removing the oligopolists. ​If ISPs can
share undersea fiber cores what stops them once they get inland and what
makes local transit so expensive compared to undersea? The issue of
unbalaced traffic is as a combination of several factors and high cost of
local bandwitdh ls one of it, I once migrated a virtual server (100gig
storage) from a datacenter in US to another in Frankfurt  and the transfer
was close to 1Gbps but try the same from different datacenters and you
wonder are they wirelessly backhauled.

Recently Hurricane Electric setup at EADC and their cost of IP transit is a
fraction of what it would cost me to get a pipe from Google cache in
Mombasa to EADC in Nairobi. The own no inland fiber cable and they are
still way affordable than any incumbent ISPs locally. How do you explain
that?

> ​
>
> It’s a complex issue 😊
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+andrew.alston=liquidtelecom.com@
> lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Job Muriuki via kictanet
> *Sent:* 03 May 2018 12:19
> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc:* Job Muriuki <muriukin at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [kictanet] Local IXP (KIXP) peering and Local traffic
>
>
>
> Anyone here from Tespok or CA shed some light.
>
>
>
> I have a question on what governs local ISP peering in Kenya. There is
> KIXP at EADC which was set up so to keep local traffic local. Is it open to
> international carriers like Seacom, Tata, Etisalat, Hurricane electric,
> China Telkom and others who are present at EADC?
>
>
>
> The reason I ask is if you take service, IP transit service from any of
> the carriers and you are not peering at KIXP your IPs (Local traffic) go
> all the way to either France or UAE and back to Kenya while they could have
> just peered at KIXP and offer faster and "affordable" connections. It makes
> no sense for a connection to ecitizen or a server hosted locally at say
> Node Africa to have to go to IXPs in other countries and brought back to
> Kenya getting treated and charged as international traffic.
>
>
>
> Is KIXP that unreliable or what is the challenge? If we don't grow our
> local capacity to deliver gigabit speeds in our IXP and take advantage of
> CDNs available locally, will we ever fully utilise the internet and
> create jobs at the same time without having multinationals come do it?
>
>
>
> Currently getting a data pipe from point A to B over a fiber connection
> within Kenya is more expensive than getting an internet connection from the
> same provider which will be carried on the same fiber link as the data pipe
> which makes absorption of hosting services in Kenya way expensive compared
> to hosting servers in Europe or America. Most Kenyans and even some
> government agencies result in hosting services overseas and the users are
> in Kenya then what is the point of investing in fiber locally and have it
> rot underground while cash is sent to companies out there for a service we
> can provide locally?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Job Muriuki,
>
> Skype: heviejob
>
>
> ‌
>
> [image: Mailtrack]
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality1&>Sent
> with Mailtrack
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality1&>
>

[image: Mailtrack]
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality4&>
Sender
notified by
Mailtrack
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality4&>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20180504/77215a4a/attachment.htm>