RE: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges
What a good idea. Someone with some spare hands on their time needs to lobby the government to make peering in NZ legislation. Although TNZ and TCNZ will be wearing a lot of the network costs in terms of trunking traffic up and down the country, they also have most of the customers - so I think that's fair and justified. If they are worried about people using their networks as a free national backbone via the peering points, there are ways to allow peering but prevent being used as free transit... Cheers Seeby -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)citylink.co.nz] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:33 AM To: nznog Subject: [nznog] Indian government plans Internet exchanges This URL points to the incoming Indian governments 10 point agenda form IT - http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2004/104052609.asp In particular, see point 5: 5. Plan to connect all ISPs in India to a national internet exchange in order to achieve efficient internet traffic routing, cost reduction and improve quality of service for the Internet users in India. Four Internet exchanges points to be fully operationalised. Small and big ISPs to route their traffic through this exchange to ensure the security of domestic traffic. Currently, 25 ISPs are connected. ---- Note the reasons for doing this especially "improve quality of service for the Internet users". _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
-----Original Message----- From: Seeby Woodhouse [mailto:seeby(a)orcon.net.nz]
Why don't they just (like a lot of other people do), Advertise their Auckland networks via APE only and their Wellington Networks via WIX only. Then they wouldn't be providing transit down the country. Advertising the Entire Clear Network via APE and the Entire Clear Networks via WIX is the problem. Thanks Craig
Juha wrote:
You try explaining that to TCL management... I don't think they understand the issue at all.
The issue they fully comprehend is $$$. I think the dictate to TelstraClearNZ has come from Telstra Australia, leaving TCNZ no option. Keith Davidson
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Craig Whitmore wrote:
This has multiple problems: It would restrict peering to people that are present at both exchanges (not everybody is), which obviously TCL are free to demand. Ofcourse it may result in ISPs that don't peer at both exchanges dumping traffic via another Telco that only peers with TCL in one location, so their net result is they achieved nothing and received no additional compensation for it. Also, what happens if there is an outage? You are losing resiliency. Using MEDs or selective de-aggregation would be a better tool, but someone like TCL should expect that with their % of customerbase, that they are going to see this type of thing happen. Honestly, they should be happy to see the traffic, because they are getting paid by their customers for it. Ofcourse, maybe they'd like to see ISPs dump it internationally (if you have the excess international capacity do this), so that TCL gets to pay for the privilege of receiving domestic traffic. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
I had also heard that they were not happy with some ISP's using the domestic
peering points to aquire cheaper international bandwidth.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seeby Woodhouse"
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Seeby Woodhouse wrote:
Someone with some spare hands on their time needs to lobby the government to make peering in NZ legislation.
I've heard a couple of times the suggestion that this sort of thing also be established in Australia. Basically the government lists a bunch of Internet exchanges ( In Australia it would the one or two per state, In NZ I'd guess APE, WIX and perhaps a few others in Hamilton, Christchurch and Dunedin) and the ISP has to announce their domestic networks to them. http://www.voiceanddata.com.au/vd/feature_article/item_012004a.asp The main problem is that if we leave T&T to themselves then they will effectively suck extra revenue out of the end-user in NZ, Make it more difficult for smaller ISPs to compete, discourage the development of high speed services and encourage people to setup sites outside of New Zealand rather than inside. In Australia it's usually cheaper for ISPs to exchange traffic (3rd or 4th hand) with Telstra in Palo Alto rather than within Australia. I suspect we'll start seeing that in New Zealand.
Thats why you have exchanges in several centers. So Telecom can announce each region in the regional Exchange while (say) Maxnet might announce their entire Network in Auckland [1] since that is where all their Network equipment is.
I was actually surprised that WIX and APE's Terms and Conditions don't explicitly ban this. Pipe has a bit that does: " Participants agree to never "default route" via another PIPE MLPA participant, without full agreement between both parties. The act of using a "default route" without permission can result in immediate termination services from the PIPE. " [2] and I suspect most other exchanges have similar rules. [1] - Of course Telstra could be evil an announce their networks in Dunedin only but you can either have rules to prevent that or just see it as regional development. [2] - http://www.pipenetworks.com/Peering/tr.shtml -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
participants (7)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Craig Whitmore -
Juha Saarinen -
Keith Davidson -
Seeby Woodhouse -
Simon Lyall -
Steven Schmidt