I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet?
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet?
Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet?
Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya.
The exchange point in Nairobi is called KIXP, not KIX, in case it helps avoid that confusion. The KIXP is The Place to reach Kenyan users, but no ISPs from parts of Africa outside Kenya participate in it, as far as I know. <http://www.kixp.net/>. Terrestrial paths between adjacent African countries are still somewhat rare. I don't have science to back this up, but I would not be surprised if the toplogical centre of today's African Internet turned out to be the LINX. Joe
At 04:11 PM 2/7/2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet?
Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya.
The exchange point in Nairobi is called KIXP, not KIX, in case it helps avoid that confusion. The KIXP is The Place to reach Kenyan users, but no ISPs from parts of Africa outside Kenya participate in it, as far as I know. <http://www.kixp.net/>.
Terrestrial paths between adjacent African countries are still somewhat rare. I don't have science to back this up, but I would not be surprised if the toplogical centre of today's African Internet turned out to be the LINX.
Yes, and double checking, I believe CIX/CRIX are one in the same with a distinction being telco colo vs. IP colo. It's not specifically clear. CRIX is run by the Egyptian MCIT. There are other options in Egypt depending upon what you are doing. The incumbent IP provider is Xceed. -M< Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
A look at Telegeography's bandwidth maps suggest that the African routes are predominantly coastal. http://www.afridigital.net/downloads/DFIDinfrastructurerep.doc adds some more detail. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Abley Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:12 PM To: Martin Hannigan Cc: Howard C. Berkowitz; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Middle Eastern Exchange Points On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in Kuwait as yet?
Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya.
The exchange point in Nairobi is called KIXP, not KIX, in case it helps avoid that confusion. The KIXP is The Place to reach Kenyan users, but no ISPs from parts of Africa outside Kenya participate in it, as far as I know. <http://www.kixp.net/>. Terrestrial paths between adjacent African countries are still somewhat rare. I don't have science to back this up, but I would not be surprised if the toplogical centre of today's African Internet turned out to be the LINX. Joe
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Joe Abley wrote: > I would not be surprised if the toplogical centre of today's African > Internet turned out to be the LINX. Yep, with 111 8th close behind. On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Frank Bulk wrote: > A look at Telegeography's bandwidth maps suggest that the African > routes are predominantly coastal. Effectively, there's no connection between North Africa and the rest of Africa... North Africa is relatively well connected to Europe via multiple cables across the Mediterranean. The western coast of Africa, wrapping around down to Cape Town, is "served" by SAT3/WASC, which is a consortium cable with a strict noncompete, so there's no market pricing available anywhere along there... Fiber is just as expensive as satellite, but with the additional cost and hassle of monopoly backhaul from the landing. East Africa and the land-locked central African countries are unserved. Since Nigeria is a huge market and generates a fair amount of cash relative to other markets in Africa, there are a couple of new cables which may soon introduce competition on the relatively short route from Lisbon down to Lagos and Abuja. Also, there's been talk forever, but no action, on an East African cable which would close the loop down from Djibouti to Cape Town, serving Mombasa and Dar and Maputo. The population on the east coast is smaller and less densely packed, though, and the fact that SAT3/WASC is effectively running without a safety net (unless anybody's bothering to patch a protect loop through SAFE to KL and back again through FLAG, which I doubt) doesn't seem to bother anybody, since the cable is priced out of the market anyway, and is thus virtually empty. Anyway, back to the conversation at hand: On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Middle Eastern Exchange Points > I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in > Kuwait as yet? All the ISPs I've talked to in Egypt claim that the Cairo IX was a failed experiment and that they haven't heard anything about it in the last two years. Which roughly corresponds with the last time I heard anyone talking about it in the present tense. But I'll defer to Joe if he has other information. As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la STIX, as opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are several private colocation facilities which sell transit, but are not IXes, in Dubai and Kuwait. There has been a Bahrain governmental effort to get an actual neutral IX going, which has been taking a while to get up to speed, and isn't out of the weeds yet... They've been talking to all the right people, have a site, have commitments from all of the cable systems, have ISP customers who've signed letters of intent and have cash waiting, but they don't have a building yet, just a bunch of cargo containers sitting on the lot in Manama, and a satellite dish farm. Nothing else I know of. -Bill
At 10:30 PM 2/7/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote: [ SNIP ]
Anyway, back to the conversation at hand:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Middle Eastern Exchange Points > I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in > Kuwait as yet?
All the ISPs I've talked to in Egypt claim that the Cairo IX was a failed experiment and that they haven't heard anything about it in the last two years. Which roughly corresponds with the last time I heard anyone talking about it in the present tense. But I'll defer to Joe if he has other information.
As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la STIX, as opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are several private colocation facilities which sell transit, but are not IXes, in Dubai and Kuwait.
Bill: UAE ISC has equipment out here. 192.228.85.0/24 is being announced out of emirates.net can't be that bad. :-) they are downstream of a whole bunch of net and I see what looks like an IX. (corrections welcome) UAE looks interesting network wise. It's too bad they can't get it together as you noted. I don't see it as bad as you...interconnecting in a government exchange is still peering. It may not be exactly the same, but I've found in some cases you can't be too picky if you can peer with even a few regionals. KIX: 3 lg. upstreams, 4 regional isp down, interconnected to UAE IX Cairo: CRIX is dead in name, but MCIT is running some exchange space & refer to it crix xor cix xor mcit possibly by simple legacy and they will talk to anyone about it. Xceed is the incumbent, renamed IIRC. The terminology and "sexy" colo's built to Telcordia standards and NEBS compliance may not be out there, but they are peering, even if it isn't by our definitions. Howard, contact info for each out of band. -M< Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Interconnecting in a government exchange is > still peering. Uh, not if it's buying transit. > They are peering, even if it isn't by our > definitions. Uh, Marty... the difference between peering and transit is that they have different definitions. If you say transit is peering, just not by our definitions, then you're into 1984 territory. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. For me, however, peering is peering, and transit is transit, and my world works better when I use words in accord with, rather than in contravention to, their definitions. -Bill
At 11:55 PM 2/7/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Interconnecting in a government exchange is > still peering.
Uh, not if it's buying transit.
> They are peering, even if it isn't by our > definitions.
Uh, Marty... the difference between peering and transit is that they have different definitions. If you say transit is peering, just not by our definitions, then you're into 1984 territory.
Bill: I'm pretty sure you know that I know the difference between paid transit and peering. If I were buying transit, I would've had a different comment. I think we may have a difference though, I don't think jumping on a big switch and saying "yes" to every peering request is peering, and I think this is a better discussion at the peering bof or in person. Anyhow, I'll be happy to tell you as much as I can (NDA) in Montreal. I don't see you listed for Dallas. Is Howard going to find peering in, er, Egypt? It depends what his value proposition is. -M< Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
different definitions. If you say transit is peering, just not by our definitions, then you're into 1984 territory.
So what exactly is definition of transit that does not make it peering? And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is that peering or transit? -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is that peering or transit?
I thought it was generally accepted that "peering" is the exhange of routes that are not re-sent to other organisations. "Transit" is when one entity sends the routes on to other organsiations, often with money involved. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is that peering or transit?
I thought it was generally accepted that "peering" is the exhange of routes that are not re-sent to other organisations.
If I peer with you, you sent me your routes and routes for who you consider to be your customer and if ISP C is your customer then ISP A by having peering with ISP B gets access to ISP C.
"Transit" is when one entity sends the routes on to other organsiations, often with money involved.
More commonly understood is that transit involves one ISP sending all of its BGP routes and allowing any traffic to be send from ISP A for for delivery to destination. However number of organizations (say cogent buying from verio) only get routes from certain specific ISPs that they can not otherwise reach which is again scenario "ISP A buys from ISP B to get to ISP C" but most people call this transit in this case... The reality is that for outside observer (especially if you look at the net as whole), there is no clear view that separates peering from transit and most correct is to consider everything to be peering with various differences being as to what kind of filters are deployed and where and how money is being exchanged. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:30 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
"Transit" is when one entity sends the routes on to other organsiations, often with money involved.
More commonly understood is that transit involves one ISP sending all of its BGP routes and allowing any traffic to be send from ISP A for for delivery to destination.
However number of organizations (say cogent buying from verio) only get routes from certain specific ISPs that they can not otherwise reach which is again scenario "ISP A buys from ISP B to get to ISP C" but most people call this transit in this case...
The reality is that for outside observer (especially if you look at the net as whole), there is no clear view that separates peering from transit and most correct is to consider everything to be peering with various differences being as to what kind of filters are deployed and where and how money is being exchanged.
Disagree. If you pass routes received from AS$I to AS$J, then you are providing transit to either $I or $J. Period. This is perfectly clear, even for an "outside observer". What gets interesting is when you pay AS$N for access to only AS$N's prefixes. That looks like peering from the outside, but most people would call it transit. However, that does not make all transit equal to peering. In fact, purchasing transit vary rarely involves BGP, so it should not be considered peering even as a special case. If you want to define it as such, all BGP sessions are "peering sessions", but we are not talking on the protocol level here. There is nothing in the protocol about transit, and using protocol level definitions when talking about business relationships makes about as much sense as arguing over Mac OS vs. Windows when discussing wire transfers. Also, just because it looks like something to an "outside observer" does not make it so. Transit vs. peering is a business relationship, and is defined by the parties involved, not the protocol used or how people outside view it. -- TTFN, patrick
--On February 8, 2006 2:13:32 PM -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote: <...>
Also, just because it looks like something to an "outside observer" does not make it so. Transit vs. peering is a business relationship, and is defined by the parties involved, not the protocol used or how people outside view it.
And that right there is the heart of the matter. It's a BUSINESS relationship. Not technical differentiation, and this is also probably where the arguments come from, and the confusion.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: > So what exactly is definition of transit that does not make it peering? Transit is the exchange of TRANSITIVE routes to destinations which are not the downstream customers of either of the two parties to the transaction. > And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is > that peering or transit? That's transit. -Bill
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
different definitions. If you say transit is peering, just not by our definitions, then you're into 1984 territory.
So what exactly is definition of transit that does not make it peering?
And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is that peering or transit?
cant believe you are even invoking this debate.. *cough troll* its quite simple: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=transit 1. The act of passing over, across, or through; passage. if another networks traffic enters your network, then you send it out to another network it has transitted you. doesnt matter what money is involved, its about the act of 'transitting' peering is just the act of exchanging traffic with another network, whether this is a transit or peering relationship depends on what routes are exchanged and whose customers are within those routes.. i think you can work the rest out Steve
On 7-Feb-2006, at 20:50, Martin Hannigan wrote:
As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la STIX, as opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are several private colocation facilities which sell transit, but are not IXes, in Dubai and Kuwait.
ISC has equipment out here. 192.228.85.0/24 is being announced out of emirates.net can't be that bad. :-)
The F-root node in Dubai is facilitated by Emirates Telecom/Etisalat/ EMIX, as per <http://f.root-servers.org/>. At the time we installed there was no facility available for peering or other multi-point interconnect with operators in UAE. I am not aware that this has changed. Woody's comparison with the STIX is spot on, as far as I know. In pragmatic terms, due to the local regulatory environment and in the absence of a neutral exchange point, obtaining transit from EMIX in Dubai is the best approximation to a comprehensive set of bilateral peering arrangements with local ISPs. However, it's not peering in a topological/routing policy sense. The fact that F-root's covering prefix doesn't propagate beyond the region is due to special handling of that prefix by our colleagues in AS 8966. ISC's intention in Dubai, as in all regions, was to provide the best access possible to F-root within the immediate surrounding region. I believe we achieved that goal. Joe
At 01:11 AM 2/8/2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7-Feb-2006, at 20:50, Martin Hannigan wrote:
As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la STIX, as opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are several private colocation facilities which sell transit, but are not IXes, in Dubai and Kuwait.
ISC has equipment out here. 192.228.85.0/24 is being announced out of emirates.net can't be that bad. :-)
The F-root node in Dubai is facilitated by Emirates Telecom/Etisalat/ EMIX, as per <http://f.root-servers.org/>. At the time we installed there was no facility available for peering or other multi-point interconnect with operators in UAE. I am not aware that this has changed. Woody's comparison with the STIX is spot on, as far as I know.
Guys, are you being semantic? I'm *agreeing with you and Woody here. Just not re: Kuwait and Egypt. You keep saying EMIX and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates yes regardless of neutrality.
In pragmatic terms, due to the local regulatory environment and in the absence of a neutral exchange point, obtaining transit from EMIX in Dubai is the best approximation to a comprehensive set of bilateral peering arrangements with local ISPs. However, it's not peering in a topological/routing policy sense. The fact that F-root's covering prefix doesn't propagate beyond the region is due to special handling of that prefix by our colleagues in AS 8966.
That's what I was interested in, and found. I appreciate the political explanation. I saw ASN 8966 and behind that ASN 5384 w/55 prefixes. 5384 looks like a choke point.
ISC's intention in Dubai, as in all regions, was to provide the best access possible to F-root within the immediate surrounding region. I believe we achieved that goal.
What is the benchmark of speedy resolution vs. application i.e. how fast do you resolve before it's irrelevant, if at all? -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
On 7-Feb-2006, at 23:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You keep saying EMIX and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates yes regardless of neutrality.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this. EMIX is the name of a transit service offered by Emirates Telecom. Joe
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Guys, are you being semantic? Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to mean, rather than the opposite. > You keep saying EMIX > and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates > yes regardless of neutrality. Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or false_. Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_ an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering, only with a single provider's commercial transit product. The same is currently true throughout much of the Middle East. -Bill
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:45:47AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Guys, are you being semantic?
Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to mean, rather than the opposite.
> You keep saying EMIX > and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates > yes regardless of neutrality.
Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or false_. Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_ an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering, only with a single provider's commercial transit product. The same is currently true throughout much of the Middle East.
-Bill
the CIX & STIX (as originally designed) models architecturally slightly different than what seems to be the case for EMIX and a few other tricks (PLDT comes to mind) where a telco is offering transit over its infrastructure. In the first two cases, all the participants (customers) fateshare ... the design was "layer 3" peering, eg. everyone terminates on a port on a common router, managed by the friendly, neutral telco/cooperative association. Nearly everyone these days equates IX with a neutral "layer 2" fabric. In a wide-area, you are still "captive" to the transmission provider to "knit" the disparate bits into a single, cohesive whole. --bill
At 01:45 PM 2/8/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Guys, are you being semantic?
Yes, we're doggedly insisting that words mean what they're defined to mean, rather than the opposite.
> You keep saying EMIX > and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates > yes regardless of neutrality.
Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or false_. Which is why we keep analogizing to the STIX, which was _called_ an IX, but was _not_ an IX, in that it had nothing to do with peering, only with a single provider's commercial transit product. The same is currently true throughout much of the Middle East.
Here's the accurate cairo data: - CRIX is DOA - CAIX is the government sponsored replacement -nile, Raya, Egynet, and others I can't discuss. - they are peering - Regional IX If you have a room full of providers who connect up to a common switch and exchange something, I'd tend to believe that it is an exchange. GRX, Layer3, etc. I didnt disagree with you for the most part on the UAE, I asked why I saw what I saw. Joe answered the technical question and I found the political/technical choke point for the UAE's access. Google can confirm that. I can understand the frustration. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
> You keep saying EMIX > and you're confusing me. Peering or no? "IX" naturally insinuates > yes regardless of neutrality.
Exactly. "IX" as a component of a name is _intended to insinuate_ the availability of peering, _regardless of whether that's actually true or false_.
It sounds like you are saying that an Internet eXchange is commonly thought of as a place where peering takes place even though, semantically, the words in the name do not have that meaning and do not even imply that meaning. In hindsight, it would have been clearer to refer to these places as peering exchanges however back in those days, the important distinction wasn't between peering and transit, it was between commercial and non-commercial traffic. So the CIX began to allow commercial networks to exchange traffic because NSFNET would not provide transit to them. Non-commercial NSFNET peers did get transit. But back to EMIX. Maybe they do not offer any peering today but is it true that they actively prohibit any companies with routers at EMIX from peering? Maybe this is just one of those growing pain situations in an area where the telco monopoly is still strong, Internet usage is relatively low, and the Internet is not providing value to the population because they have other economic needs. Is it really worthwhile arguing about what names are used in a non-Western country where English is not the language normally spoken? --Michael Dillon
On 9-Feb-2006, at 02:19, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
But back to EMIX. Maybe they do not offer any peering today but is it true that they actively prohibit any companies with routers at EMIX from peering?
There is no "at EMIX". EMIX is an ISP, AS 8966, with network connecting various cities in UAE, and to various locations outside UAE (e.g. New York). If you are connected to EMIX, you are a transit customer of Emirates Telecom. There is no more ability for two customers of 8966 to bring up a peering session with each other via EMIX than there is for two customers of 701 to peer with each other. If you can agree that 701 is not an exchange point, then it should be clear that 8966 is also not an exchange point. EMIX is used for the exchange of traffic between organisations in UAE in the following sense: since it is the only way to obtain Internet access in UAE, and since it's the common transit provider for everybody else, it follows that traffic between any two other organisations will flow through AS 8966. However, EMIX is not an exchange point according to any common use of that term today.
Is it really worthwhile arguing about what names are used in a non-Western country where English is not the language normally spoken?
I don't hear anybody passing judgement on the marketing departments of Emirates Telecom. I just hear continued confusion as to whether or not there is an exchange point in UAE (there isn't). Perhaps that is clear, now. Joe
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote: > In hindsight, it would have been clearer to refer to these > places as peering exchanges however back in those days, the important > distinction wasn't between peering and transit. There was a significant effort from 2001 to distinguish between "peering exchanges" and "transit exchanges," and that's something I continue to do today. However, a "transit exchange" is (and is Definition by Strong Assertion, since it's not a commonly enough used phrase to have a definition by general acceptance) a place where multiple buyers and multiple sellers convene to buy and sell transit in a market environment. Things like STIX, where there is one seller and multiple buyers, are indistinguishable from common transit, and therefore _are_ common transit, which marketing people have slapped a *IX name onto in order to try to cloak themselves in unearned credibility. > Is it really worthwhile arguing about what names are used > in a non-Western country where English is not the language > normally spoken? ...but English is the language they choose to use for naming these things, because English the the language in which they gain the unearned associations. At least it's one step better than everybody who isn't one calling themselves a NAP. -Bill
At 11:08 AM 2/9/2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote: > In hindsight, it would have been clearer to refer to these > places as peering exchanges however back in those days, the important > distinction wasn't between peering and transit.
There was a significant effort from 2001 to distinguish between "peering exchanges" and "transit exchanges," and that's something I continue to do today.
Your trash is my treasure. Neutrality is key.
However, a "transit exchange" is (and is Definition by Strong Assertion, since it's not a commonly enough used phrase to have a definition by general acceptance) a place where multiple buyers and multiple sellers convene to buy and sell transit in a market environment.
Strong assertion noted. [ SNIP ]
At least it's one step better than everybody who isn't one calling themselves a NAP.
NAP, IX, $IX, exchange. If there's a mutually beneficial reason to be there, you will be there. If people are there, they will exchange traffic. If they exchange traffic, they are an exchange. I'd be happy to debate this point in a panel or BoF. It's been beat to death here.
On 2/7/06, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Joe Abley wrote: > I would not be surprised if the toplogical centre of today's African > Internet turned out to be the LINX.
Yep, with 111 8th close behind.
Most of the African ISPs connect into 118th and the LINX. All the ISPs I've talked to in Egypt claim that the Cairo IX was a failed
experiment and that they haven't heard anything about it in the last two years. Which roughly corresponds with the last time I heard anyone talking about it in the present tense. But I'll defer to Joe if he has other information.
The existing Cairo IX is/was not a success for many reasons. Just FYI - There is a new IX starting up in Cairo (see http://www.gpx.ie). GPX is trying to be available for the growth in the region. I've been involved in their technical specifications so I can attest to the high level of redundancy, load capabilities and architecture. -Hank
participants (15)
-
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Frank Bulk -
Gadi Evron -
h k -
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Joe Abley -
Marshall Eubanks -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael Loftis -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
william(at)elan.net