[bdNOG] IX and Local Peering

Fakrul Alam fakrul at bdhub.com
Mon Nov 25 02:22:38 BDT 2013


I am wondering why leading telcos are note connected with IX or not
feeling interested to do so. Now we have 3G; there will be more data
traffic. Now I want my smart phone to register with my ISP SIP Server
for IPTSP Service. As we know SIP is blocked from IIG (I know there are
some way around..dushto loker kaaj); if telco is not connected with IX I
can't do so..right?

---
Pappu
On 11/24/13, 12:42 PM, Md. Mahbubul Alam Reyad wrote:
> Hi Pappu Bhai
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for concerning on the local content enriching and to change to subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to focus on the followings:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.       To fix out the current issues (ODF scope, Available Gig-ports, Flexible Prefix announcement, security mechanism in IX peer etc.) in BDIX so that the non-connected ISP/BWA/Telco/Others get interested to connect.
> 
> 2.       To workout for NIX development. (don't know whether the license are issued yet or not)
> 
> 3.       To increase awareness among the Banks, Corporate house, SOHO, individuals to keep their web/mail/applications contents locally. Because I believe now in Bangladesh there are some standard data centers / ISPs who can ensure power, space, internet, content security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely Yours
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Md. Mahbubul Alam Reyad
> 
> Assistant Manager
> 
> CORE-IP Network || Technology
> 
> Cell: +880 1976672281 || Skype: new_reyad
> 
> www.qubee.com.bd
> 
> T +88 02 8812113 || F +88 02 8812115
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nog-bounces at bdnog.org [mailto:nog-bounces at bdnog.org] On Behalf Of Fakrul Alam
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 2:32 PM
> To: nog at bdnog.org
> Subject: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hasib Bhai; it's also possible. Regarding NIX; well no comments :-)
> 
> 
> 
> By the way I have changed the Subject as the topic changed to something else.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Pappu
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/23/13, 2:19 PM, Mohibul Hasib Mahmud wrote:
> 
>> Pappu Bhai,
> 
>>
> 
>> I know currently BDIX not providing hosting space. It is my proposal
> 
>> that if some content mutually benefited to all can we put them in the
> 
>> BDIX depending on consensus among the BDIX members.
> 
>>
> 
>> IX for IIG also good thing because by that we could also save foreign
> 
>> currency.
> 
>>
> 
>> I was just wondering if there is policy in place why NIX is not happening.
> 
>> What are the road blocks.
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> Hasib
> 
>>
> 
>>
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Fakrul Alam <fakrul at bdhub.com<mailto:fakrul at bdhub.com>> wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>>> Dear Hasib Bhai,
> 
>>>
> 
>>> I think we are missing one point...."hosting content in BDIX". As far
> 
>>> as I know...BDIX won't give you hosting/collocation service; it only
> 
>>> help you to do the local peering. It's ISP / Hosting provider who
> 
>>> bring out the content and facilitates it's to IX.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> Regarding "connectivity between IIG" is pretty messy :-). Connecting
> 
>>> 30+ IIG?? Think we need to consider IX for IIG also :-) As per IIG Guideline:
> 
>>>
> 
>>> 9.07: For domestic internet traffic, all ISPs and BWAs will be
> 
>>> connected with Nationla Internet Exchanges(s) (NIX), which shall
> 
>>> operate on a peering basis. IIG shall also be connected to NIX if so
> 
>>> directed by the Commission as and when needed.
> 
>>> 9.08: IIGs shall have interconnection among themselves. PoPs of
> 
>>> different IIGs shall have interconnection among themselves.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> So there is no legal issue; only awareness. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
>>>
> 
>>> --
> 
>>> Pappu
> 
>>>
> 
>>> On 11/23/13, 1:43 PM, Mohibul Hasib Mahmud wrote:
> 
>>>> I am agree with Simon Bhai. I am using lots of issues with BDIX
> 
>>>> specially since I am taking full BGP routing table from Internet, I
> 
>>>> am facing lot
> 
>>> of
> 
>>>> issues connecting other peers in the BDIX. Some of the issues I have
> 
>>>> already discussed with Sumon Bhai. May be Simon Bhai also can remember.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> I also agree with Pappu Bhai and I have no disagreements. I would
> 
>>>> like to add few things.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Regarding point 2 I think we need to raise awareness also need to
> 
>>>> understand why they do not want to connect to BDIX. Then I think we
> 
>>>> can find out a plan.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Regarding point 3 my comment is if somebody wants to host in google
> 
>>>> let them do it. Later may be we can ask google to put a server at BDIX.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Regarding point 3 content issue. It will not solve overnight. We
> 
>>>> need to support whatever initiative is currently available. Things
> 
>>>> like we could host Khan Academy Bangla lessons in the BDIX. So that
> 
>>>> other content providers will be benefited.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Besides these points I would like to raise another issue. We need
> 
>>>> connectivity between IIGs. I think this is the first thing. I don't
> 
>>>> know the legal issues but if there is any than we need to take
> 
>>>> initiative to make regulator understand the issue.
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> Thanks
> 
>>>> Hasib
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC /
> 
>>> Sr.Manager /
> 
>>>> 01678618243 / <simon.baroi at fiberathome.net<mailto:simon.baroi at fiberathome.net>> wrote:
> 
>>>>
> 
>>>>> Dear Pappu Vai,
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> Some very important point you haven mentioned.
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> One main issue comes is the IX. As per our discussion there are so
> 
>>>>> many routing level issue in the IX. Even from F at H, we couldn't
> 
>>>>> connect with them, due to the hassle we have to take to manage the prefixes.
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> I want to give a proposal. Can we sit next week at your office,
> 
>>>>> with the people of BDIX to solve the routing issue. I will try to
> 
>>>>> bring SUMON
> 
>>> vai,
> 
>>>>> as he has a huge contribution for this and from the planning stage
> 
>>>>> he
> 
>>> was
> 
>>>>> with BDIX.
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> Lets sit and resolve the issue. In Phase-2 we will sit for the
> 
>>>>> Chaching issue.
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> - with regards
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> SIMON
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> *P.S : a small room with 20 people can sit is enough with a board.*
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Fakrul Alam <fakrul at bdhub.com<mailto:fakrul at bdhub.com>> wrote:
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> Dear Simon Bhai / Hasib Bhai
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> No doubt about local peering. Putting GGC/Akamai in IX is bigger
> 
>>>>>> part but don't you think still we are missing few important issues:
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> 1. Only one site (www.prothom-alo.com<http://www.prothom-alo.com>) is hosted in BD among the
> 
>>>>>> top
> 
>>> 50
> 
>>>>>> sites in Bangladesh (ranked by Alexa).
> 
>>>>>> 2. AFAIK only one Telco is connected in BDIX. Not sure about the WiMAX.
> 
>>>>>> 3. ISP them self hosting there mail server in Google Cloud rather
> 
>>>>>> than maintaining it by themselves.
> 
>>>>>> 4. Very little/no initiatives to increase local content.
> 
>>>>>> 5. ISP still can't feel the difference between Transit & Peering.
> 
>>>>>> They are asking for IX connectivity to there IIG (Transit
> 
>>>>>> Provider) and lots of packages are going on in market. I think you understand the point.
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> For GGC/Akamai or other CDN we have to meet certain criteria and
> 
>>>>>> there are dependencies. But there are something which is within
> 
>>>>>> our control but still missing. Finger cross...and hope for the best.
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> -Pappu
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> On 11/23/13, 12:30 PM, Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager /
> 
>>>>>> 01678618243 / wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Really agreed with Pappu vai's comment. Finanacial thing is the
> 
>>> biggest
> 
>>>>>>> issue.
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>> Roman vai, Peering through ITC is not possible. As Bharti and
> 
>>>>>>> Tata forcefully bundle the price with IP transit. You can connect
> 
>>>>>>> with the
> 
>>>>>> CDN
> 
>>>>>>> operator ot IX directly. But they will charge you IPLC and IP
> 
>>>>>>> transit together. So, peering become more costly solution.
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>> Regarding Global cache. I talked with Akamai. Their cach is very
> 
>>>>>>> big
> 
>>> and
> 
>>>>>>> running in 2 places in Bangladesh. But they want to connect them
> 
>>>>>>> with
> 
>>>>>> BDIX.
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>> Simon.
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 23, 2013, Mohibul Hasib Mahmud wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>> My personal observation is we should work for more local peering
> 
>>>>>>>> and global cache locally in the form of CDN ( global CDN like
> 
>>>>>>>> Akamai) to improve end user experience.
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
> 
>>>>>>>> Hasib
> 
>>>>>>>> BRACNet
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Nurul Islam Roman
> 
>>>>>>>> <nurul at apnic.net
> 
>>> <javascript:_e({},
> 
>>>>>> 'cvml', 'nurul at apnic.net');>
> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> What is something else :).
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> Is it more peering? Does it worth peering with IPLC?  Or should
> 
>>>>>>>>> we advocate more local peering and bring global cache locally?
> 
>>>>>>>>> I have
> 
>>>>>> got
> 
>>>>>>>>> positive comments in BD though regarding peering with IPLC
> 
>>> (specially
> 
>>>>>> end
> 
>>>>>>>>> user experience) and also price perspective. What is the
> 
>>>>>>>>> community
> 
>>>>>> thought
> 
>>>>>>>>> on this? BIG FAT vs Good quality? Thanks Simon for bringing
> 
>>>>>>>>> this. :)
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> Roman
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> On 23/11/13 4:52 AM, "Fakrul Alam" <fakrul at bdhub.com
> 
>>> <javascript:_e({},
> 
>>>>>>>>> 'cvml', 'fakrul at bdhub.com');>> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> This been tricky. There are two aspects; financial & technical.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> Technically it's been great to have big names like PCCW, HGC,
> 
>>>>>>>>>> HKIX, Telstra, NTT, AT&T; but you need to find out whether
> 
>>>>>>>>>> it's been
> 
>>>>>> feasible
> 
>>>>>>>>>> financially when:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 1. You have 30++ IIG in the market.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2. BSCCL half circuit price is roughly 80% of your total b/w
> 
>>>>>>>>>> cost
> 
>>> for
> 
>>>>>>>>>> SMW4.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 3. 10% revenue share with BTRC.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Competitive market where price win in all aspect.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 5. ITC holding IIG license (I know there will be lot of
> 
>>>>>>>>>> arguments)
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> -Pappu
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/13, 9:17 PM, Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager
> 
>>>>>>>>>> /
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 01678618243 / wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think so many topic is going on. I want to add another one.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This
> 
>>>>>> is
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> really important as all of us want to have a good internet in
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Bangladesh.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Before the ITC Connectivity comes to Bangladesh. We found
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> MANGO
> 
>>> and
> 
>>>>>>>>> BTCL
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> connected with different Tire-1 IP Transit Providers.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> But the number were limited to TIS, Bharti, Singtel, TM. As
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
> 
>>>>>> price
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> was
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> really high, then people couldn't tell anything about the
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> transit provider.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I found MANGO sometimes added some new name in their list.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> But
> 
>>> BTCL
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't,
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> as expected. Now the new player, BSCCL is connected only with TIS.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> When ITC comes, the scenario become worst. The internet cost
> 
>>> reduced
> 
>>>>>>>>> 82%
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> and all of us get connected with TATA and Bharti.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> As the big borthers wont allow the ITC provider to go with
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> IPLC
> 
>>> and
> 
>>>>>> go
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> to
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> other providers. The price is binded with their IP Transit.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Some
> 
>>>>>> kind
> 
>>>>>>>>> of
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> IPLC kinle IPTransit FREE.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> All of us Bharti and TATA - with big big pipe. When a client
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ping
> 
>>>>>> from
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> laptop, they have to pass atleast one of them.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Don't you think, we are missing some good things ? ( Big
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> names
> 
>>> like
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> PCCW,
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> HGC, HKIX, Telstra, NTT, AT&T etc ) *
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Don't you think, we are giving client a very bad internet
> 
>>>>>> experience
> 
>>>>>>>>> ?*
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *OR*
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Getting Google within 70ms is more than enough for the
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> client.*
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think - BIG FAT Pipe with INDIA  - or -  GOOD
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Transit Providers
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> - or - Something else. ?
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> - with regards
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> SIMON
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *( Apu da and Amin vai, please don't get me wrong as I have
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> used
> 
>>>>>>>>> MANGO's
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> name without your permission )*
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nog at bdnog.org');>
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>>>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>>>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nog at bdnog.org');>
> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nog at bdnog.org');>
> 
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org>
> 
>>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org>
> 
>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> --
> 
>>>>> *Simon Sohel Baroi  *|  Sr. Manager, Technology  |  PICO  |   ITC - IIG
> 
>>>  |
> 
>>>>> Cell : +880-1678-618243, +880-181-7022207  |  Desk :
> 
>>>>> +880-9666776677
> 
>>>>> Ext-1031  |
> 
>>>>> Mail : simon.baroi at pico.net.bd<mailto:simon.baroi at pico.net.bd> <simon.baroi at fiberathome.net<mailto:simon.baroi at fiberathome.net>>  |
> 
>>>>> Skype
> 
>>> :
> 
>>>>> tx.fttx  |
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> * Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Respect. It's the little things that
> 
>>>>> really
> 
>>> can
> 
>>>>> make a difference. *
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org>
> 
>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>>
> 
>>>>
> 
>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>>> nog mailing list
> 
>>> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org>
> 
>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 
>>>
> 
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> nog mailing list
> 
> nog at bdnog.org<mailto:nog at bdnog.org>
> 
> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> 


More information about the nog mailing list