On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote:

It would *great* if an English version of this page existed. :-/

How about a summary?

...

Embratel - PIR

1. Introduction - introduces definitions such as PBI = NSP like Sprint, MCI, et al. PSCI = ISP like Panix, Netaxs, et al. RAR = academic nets like Merit AUT = ISP's who bypass the national backbone. These do not exist in the USA but do in Canada and some other countries IR = Network Interconnection PIR = NAP or IXP Embratel = the national telco RNP = Brazil's version of NSFnet GT-ER = WG on Network Engineering and Operation sounds a bit like an formal NANOG. In this scenario there's a growing need for a completely integrated national Internet architecture in Brazil. The IR WG is defining the archtecture and establishing the criteria for later implementation of this. This document is based upon the American NAP experiences with the intention of adapting it to the reality in Brazil. 2. IXP's - defines and IXP and points out that the IXP will not supply international transit, that's the job of the PBI's. Points out that everyone (PBI, AUT and RAR) must connect to the PIR's in order to keep all local traffic off international links. PIR's can be implemented with Ethernet, Fast Ether, FDDI, SMDS, ATM. Minimum requirements are T1 line and BGP capability. No AUP's allowed regarding traffic content. 3. Topics for discussion about IXP's. Various questions arise... Where will the PIR's be located? Who can connect directly to a PIR? What will be the minimum conditions for a network to connect to a PIR? What is the minimum physical structure of a PIR? What will be the minimum operational ?procedures (?installation, emergency situations PIR-PIR communication, PIR-network communication)? What will be the minimum security ?procedures imposed by a PIR? What will be the ? usage policy for information traffic in a PIR? What will be the ?procedures for collecting and processing statistical data on the traffic. Who can start and operate a PIR? How will PIR services be priced? Will they be fee-based? [note: where a word begins with ? it means I'm not sure of the translation] 4. Initial Proposition Who can connect...? To get local traffic off the international links all networks with an existing international ?should?must connect and must direct all local traffic to the PIR's. Where will they be? Where the major traffic volumes are. In the two principal cities São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. For strategic reasons a PIR will also go in the capital city, Brasilia. As traffic levels evolve Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, etc. Minimum conditions to connect? First, a PIR can be built with Fast Ethernet or FDDI. Connections to the PIR will be minimum of 512kbps. Fast Ether is cheap, FDDI more robust but complex. [this last sentence In the future new technologies will be is a full direct examined such as ATM, for example, translation of the original] following the tendency of the NAP's. Operational procedures? Hoped for service levels: 7/24 operation and ?accessibility. 99.5% uptime, 2 hour recovery time from critical problems. Minimum security? Participants will be responsible for security of their own networks. No specific mechanisms to be imposed by the PIR. Who can run one? Any company who has the knowledge to run one. Right now Embratel and RNP are the most likely, each one being responsible for one PIR; one in SP and one in RdJ Pricing? PIR services must be offered commercially for a monthly fee. Circuits must be bought from the local telco. 5. Conclusion As was mentioned previously, this is a first draft regarding IR whith the objective of giving a basic outline for debate. As suggestions and criticisms are received, this text will be expanded possibly leading to a recommendation that will be submitted to the GT-ER Coordinator.

...

GT-ER - PIR

Another proposal directly from GT-ER for 3 PIR's again, with the goal of keeping local traffic within the country. This is in the final stage of discussion and in preparation for presentation to the Steering Group the GT-ER coordination suggests the following changes: Section 4. raise the minimum circuit to a PIR to E1(2Mbps) to ensure that the traffic already seen between Embratel and RNP can be accomodated. The coordination of each PIR must have strong local participation. It appears the best form is to include the academic sector, local telco, and a council of all PIR participants. This is dated August 26, 1996 and is followed by a similar if not identical document to the one on the Embratel site. I think June, 1996 was when Brazilian ISP's met to form a national ISP association so I'm not sure if they are involved here in any way. I don't really know Portuguese, just French, Spanish and Latin, but I've discovered that I can read Portuguese web pages almost as easily as Spanish since they are quite close linguistically. However it is always possible that I have grossly misinterpreted some word so, caveat emptor. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com