<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Mich, Yawe et al,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>my only comment arises from the broad understanding that IXPs (Internet eXchange Points) are building blocks or concentration points for Internet traffic. 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 @</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008000>www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=127</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>walu.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 1/6/10, Sammy Buruchara <I><buruchara@mac.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Sammy Buruchara <buruchara@mac.com><BR>Subject: Re: [kictanet] State Wrong on Internet Exchange Point , is it true<BR>To: jwalu@yahoo.com<BR>Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><BR>Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 5:58 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Thanks Michuki for pointing out this misunderstood issue.<BR><BR><BR>Regards<BR>Sammy<BR><BR><BR>On 1/6/10 11:34 AM, "Michuki Mwangi" <<A href="http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=michuki@swiftkenya.com" ymailto="mailto:michuki@swiftkenya.com">michuki@swiftkenya.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> Hi Robert,<BR>> <BR>> Please see my comments inline. This time am wearing my KIXP CTO hat on :)<BR>> <BR>> robert yawe wrote:<BR>>> Hi,<BR>>> <BR>>> The GIXP is essential because KIXP is in principle a private entity of<BR>>> which membership is by invitation.<BR>> <BR>> The above is not accurate - in anycase KIXP has tried to upload its<BR>> license requirement to connect only those operators licensed by CCK to<BR>> be Internet or Data service providers. Something in my humble opinion<BR>> that needs a review to allow any organization with content to be able to<BR>> connect
i.e content providers etc.<BR>> <BR>> GIXP is essential for security and<BR>>> also to improve on the governments internal traffic which they would not<BR>>> enjoy if using the KIXP which does not accomodate all providers.<BR>>> <BR>> <BR>> To start with KIXP provides a Layer 2 service like most other IXPs in<BR>> the world. Security in terms of access to the layer 2 infrastructure is<BR>> provided at all times. However our inability to connect everyone is a<BR>> limitation of the existing license requirement and not that of KIXP.<BR>> <BR>>> KIXP mainly provides mail routing and the links from the various ISPs to<BR>>> the exchange point vary thus causing regular congestion which then falls<BR>>> you back to routing through the internet.<BR>> <BR>> The specifics are very important here - we do not provide mail routing.<BR>> We provide a layer 2 infrastructure for
interconnection. That means ISPs<BR>> come to KIXP instead of having direct links to every other ISP, but they<BR>> all have a single link to a single location. They use BGP protocol to<BR>> announce their own prefixes to all those at KIXP and receive the<BR>> prefixes (IP address blocks) of everyone else announcing at the<BR>> facility. IP addresses can originate and receive all known and unknown<BR>> internet services/protocols. Thus with KIXP providing a Switch (layer 2<BR>> service) we have no ability to filter based on protocol or other since<BR>> its a layer 2 service. Therefore protocol policies is not possible in a<BR>> layer 2 service.<BR>> <BR>> If KIXP wants to disprove me<BR>>> let them give us access to the traffic graphs for the exchange point, a<BR>>> summary of the connected providers, protocols allowed and size of links<BR>>> to the exchange point.<BR>>> <BR>>
Please check on the kixp website for a listing of all this - its public<BR>> information www.kixp.or.ke under membership - we provide the data<BR>> available i.e Name, Status, ASN, EtherIP allocated to them at KIXP and<BR>> who their infrastructure provider is.<BR>> <BR>> The aggregate traffic statistic is also available i have attached the<BR>> current weeks aggregate traffic and past 12 months as well.<BR>> <BR>> For obvious reasons, i.e i doubt if any of our members would appreciate<BR>> us disclosing the capacity of their link to the KIXP is or what the<BR>> composition of their traffic is to a public mailing list. Am sure you<BR>> would equally not be pleased if your provider publicly published your<BR>> traffic composition on any public website.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I once again emphasize there's no protocol policing at the KIXP we<BR>> provide a layer 2 service and not a layer 3 service. We also
dont<BR>> publish how much capacity they have but we do monitor individually.<BR>> <BR>>> The IXP for Kenya needs to be owned and run by CCK and preferably placed<BR>>> in Mombasa at the entry/exit point of the fibre cables so as to reduce<BR>>> the inefficiencies of routing local traffic through expensive<BR>>> international gateways.<BR>>> <BR>> <BR>> If you carefully read my previous post, you will understand what a<BR>> market boundary is - you will further see why its economically viable to<BR>> have an IXP in Nairobi and another in Mombasa and any other market<BR>> boundary that can exist in the country/region. As to who runs the IXP<BR>> thats an open discussion and i placed some discussion points in the<BR>> previous email (commercial or non-profit).<BR>> <BR>> For instance, KIXP was formed by the ISPs and as such is run by the ISP<BR>> association. If the KRA and others
peer at the KIXP which is valuable to<BR>> them. One important aspect to have in mind is that for anyone to peer at<BR>> a facility, trust is a key concern - do your members trust you enough<BR>> that you are not going to be biased with the way you treat them. In any<BR>> case do they have a say on how the facility is run?. Please remember<BR>> that the ISP business is quite competitive hence trust issues are rife<BR>> and cannot be ignored.<BR>> <BR>>> Carry out a trace between an ISP on SeaCom and another on TEAMS to see<BR>>> the routing that forces many of us to host overseas.<BR>>> <BR>> <BR>> If you have bandwidth limitations between one ISP to another not going<BR>> via KIXP, please check with that ISP, they have what it takes to be at<BR>> the KIXP (license and access to infrastructure) to have good speeds<BR>> available. For your information we monitor members links and advise
them<BR>> when they fail, run close to the allowed threshold etc.<BR>> <BR>> Here's my traceroute using Instaconnect/Igowireless to Jambo.co.ke which<BR>> is Jambonet. My ISP is on Seacom and i would presume TKL is on TEAMS.<BR>> The trace is via KIXP and the latencies are quite acceptable to me<BR>> <BR>> Last login: Wed Jan 6 11:19:49 on ttys010<BR>> Mich:~ michuki$ traceroute -n www.jambo.co.ke<BR>> traceroute to www.jambo.co.ke (212.49.70.11), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets<BR>> 1 10.0.1.1 1.825 ms 1.670 ms 9.838 ms<BR>> 2 41.190.232.233 52.833 ms 84.094 ms 63.567 ms<BR>> 3 41.190.235.254 76.717 ms 59.312 ms 141.762 ms<BR>> 4 198.32.143.79 109.559 ms * 97.589 ms<BR>> 5 10.10.0.8 135.833 ms 44.089 ms 89.653 ms<BR>> 6 212.49.70.11 109.201 ms
!<10> 101.042 ms !<10> 111.535 ms !<10><BR>> Mich:~ michuki$<BR>> <BR>> I have similar traces to other networks which i can share - by the way i<BR>> live in a place called Kinoo on Naivasha Road, just before Kikuyu on<BR>> wimax solution. It works just fine for me. If you wish you can ask folks<BR>> on skunkworks to do their traces and submit their results, they will be<BR>> alot similar. The bottom line is, if an ISP has a limited capacity via<BR>> KIXP you need to push them to upgrade it. In some instances an ISP can<BR>> fail to announce all its prefixes at KIXP - we have no way of enforcing<BR>> this because its likely their peering policy or other decision. As such,<BR>> the impact of this will be felt across the entire network.<BR>> <BR>> Hope that helps.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Michuki.<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
kictanet mailing list<BR>> <A href="http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke" ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target=_blank>http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</A><BR>> <BR>> This message was sent to: <A href="http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sammy@opensystems.co.ke" ymailto="mailto:sammy@opensystems.co.ke">sammy@opensystems.co.ke</A><BR>> Unsubscribe or change your options at<BR>> <A href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/sammy%40opensystems.co.ke" target=_blank>http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/sammy%40opensystems.co.ke</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>kictanet mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke"
ymailto="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</A><BR><A href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target=_blank>http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</A><BR><BR>This message was sent to: <A href="http://us.mc578.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jwalu@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com">jwalu@yahoo.com</A><BR>Unsubscribe or change your options at <A href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com" target=_blank>http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>