Hello all, Has anybody seen or heard of any further development of this: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EA57668828E0FEEFCC2572AC0070D766 Basically Telecom saying they would establish 29 regional points of interconnection, where providers could interconnect with them. The article mentions paying for a circuit into Telecom's network, with them reciprocating a circuit back (in the case of an ethernet interconnect, does this mean paying half each?). I am also wondering if any of these "regional points of interconnection" will be at the existing IXs, and in which case it doesn't seem that either Telecom or the other provider should have to pay anything for interconnect. What's the current word on the street? Has anybody engaged Telecom over this, or know what stage they are at? On another note, it seems funny that I am almost scared to post to nznog these days given the recent 'moderation by the people' ;). Regards, Anton
On 27/06/2007, at 12:46 AM, Anton Smith wrote:
Basically Telecom saying they would establish 29 regional points of interconnection, where providers could interconnect with them.
The article mentions paying for a circuit into Telecom's network, with them reciprocating a circuit back (in the case of an ethernet interconnect, does this mean paying half each?).
I'm a little confused by some of the terminology being used and exactly what that will mean - hopefully when a few more specifics come out it will make a little more sense. In the case of reciprocating a circuit back, does that mean you end up with two circuits between parties? Or you end up with two unidirectional circuits? I suspect this in fact means each party is responsible for getting to the peering point, wherever that may end up being.
I am also wondering if any of these "regional points of interconnection" will be at the existing IXs, and in which case it doesn't seem that either Telecom or the other provider should have to pay anything for interconnect.
What's the current word on the street? Has anybody engaged Telecom over this, or know what stage they are at?
There's quite a lot of work going on between InternetNZ, ISPANZ, and Telecom on this. Believe it or not, things are actually looking quite promising.
On another note, it seems funny that I am almost scared to post to nznog these days given the recent 'moderation by the people' ;).
NZNOG is not for telling people how scared you are to post to the list! Cheers, Jonny.
On 26-Jun-2007, at 17:56, Jonny Martin wrote:
On 27/06/2007, at 12:46 AM, Anton Smith wrote:
Basically Telecom saying they would establish 29 regional points of interconnection, where providers could interconnect with them.
The article mentions paying for a circuit into Telecom's network, with them reciprocating a circuit back (in the case of an ethernet interconnect, does this mean paying half each?).
I'm a little confused by some of the terminology being used and exactly what that will mean - hopefully when a few more specifics come out it will make a little more sense. In the case of reciprocating a circuit back, does that mean you end up with two circuits between parties? Or you end up with two unidirectional circuits? I suspect this in fact means each party is responsible for getting to the peering point, wherever that may end up being.
It seems to me that this kind of arrangement (sharing the cost of circuits) is very much the way that voice interconnects between carriers were arranged back when I had occasion to care about such things (via POIs, POLIs and SPOLIs). I assumed that the terminology was the result of the regular voice interconnect guys writing the press release, and that it probably bore little resemblance to anything that might be used in practice. (You'll know I'm right if you start to see peering ratios expressed in erlangs :-) Joe
I wonder if there is a need, when considering multimedia etc, to have more service specific metrics incl as the base arrangement. Would be expect this would be more complex than straight QoS and BW arrangements. Just a thought. On Wed, June 27, 2007 2:20 pm, Joe Abley wrote:
On 26-Jun-2007, at 17:56, Jonny Martin wrote:
On 27/06/2007, at 12:46 AM, Anton Smith wrote:
Basically Telecom saying they would establish 29 regional points of interconnection, where providers could interconnect with them.
The article mentions paying for a circuit into Telecom's network, with them reciprocating a circuit back (in the case of an ethernet interconnect, does this mean paying half each?).
I'm a little confused by some of the terminology being used and exactly what that will mean - hopefully when a few more specifics come out it will make a little more sense. In the case of reciprocating a circuit back, does that mean you end up with two circuits between parties? Or you end up with two unidirectional circuits? I suspect this in fact means each party is responsible for getting to the peering point, wherever that may end up being.
It seems to me that this kind of arrangement (sharing the cost of circuits) is very much the way that voice interconnects between carriers were arranged back when I had occasion to care about such things (via POIs, POLIs and SPOLIs).
I assumed that the terminology was the result of the regular voice interconnect guys writing the press release, and that it probably bore little resemblance to anything that might be used in practice.
(You'll know I'm right if you start to see peering ratios expressed in erlangs :-)
Joe
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
If the importance of the traffic exchanged increases (eg increasing VoIP peering), maybe provisioning two links for peering is a good idea. The other thing that might be interesting to consider in some environments (eg peering through a switched infrastructure) is faster convergence. Pairing BFD with eBGP would enable much faster detection of the loss of connectivity. Now seems like a good time to raise it. Regards Ian -----Original Message----- From: peter(a)mynetworks.co.nz [mailto:peter(a)mynetworks.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 2:40 PM To: Joe Abley Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; Anton Smith Subject: Re: [nznog] telecom peering I wonder if there is a need, when considering multimedia etc, to have more service specific metrics incl as the base arrangement. Would be expect this would be more complex than straight QoS and BW arrangements. Just a thought. On Wed, June 27, 2007 2:20 pm, Joe Abley wrote:
On 26-Jun-2007, at 17:56, Jonny Martin wrote:
On 27/06/2007, at 12:46 AM, Anton Smith wrote:
Basically Telecom saying they would establish 29 regional points of interconnection, where providers could interconnect with them.
The article mentions paying for a circuit into Telecom's network, with them reciprocating a circuit back (in the case of an ethernet interconnect, does this mean paying half each?).
I'm a little confused by some of the terminology being used and exactly what that will mean - hopefully when a few more specifics come out it will make a little more sense. In the case of reciprocating a circuit back, does that mean you end up with two circuits between parties? Or you end up with two unidirectional circuits? I suspect this in fact means each party is responsible for getting to the
peering
point, wherever that may end up being.
It seems to me that this kind of arrangement (sharing the cost of circuits) is very much the way that voice interconnects between carriers were arranged back when I had occasion to care about such things (via POIs, POLIs and SPOLIs).
I assumed that the terminology was the result of the regular voice interconnect guys writing the press release, and that it probably bore little resemblance to anything that might be used in practice.
(You'll know I'm right if you start to see peering ratios expressed in erlangs :-)
Joe
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Anton Smith wrote:
Hello all,
Has anybody seen or heard of any further development of this:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EA57668828E0FEEFCC2572AC0070D766
There are already many regional points you can "interconnect" with Telecom, just don't expect it to be free. I generally take the term "peering" to mean just between BGP neighbours, irrespective to if there is money changing hands or not. IMO YMMV etc -Richard
participants (6)
-
Anton Smith -
Ian Quinn -
Joe Abley -
Jonny Martin -
peter＠mynetworks.co.nz -
Richard Patterson