[bdNOG] IX and Local Peering

• Previous message: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
• Next message: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In every option there is pros and cons. May be we need to find a balance.


Hasib


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Fakrul Alam <fakrul at bdhub.com> wrote:

> There are few issues (as my observation) when IIG connects with IX.
>
> 1. If both IIG & ISP are connected with IX, there is a chance that ISP
> become transit for that IIG for other domestic traffic if Prefix
> Filtering/AS Filter is not precise.
>
> 2. As Philip says; in IX "local traffic becomes limited by the physical
> capacity to the IX, not by a bank balance." If IIG connects with IX;
> definitely it will increase end user experience; but IIG shape ISP b/w
> based on there subscribed b/w; regardless of international or domestic
> traffic.
>
> 3. AFAIK, BDIX right now only allow IIG originated prefix (^$); not
> customer prefix. If this is the case, only upload traffic will be gone
> via IX; return packet will follow internet.
>
> --
> Pappu
>
> On 11/25/13, 1:00 PM, Shahidullah Kaisar wrote:
> > in regulation IIG may have connectivity with other IIG. If all IIG agreed
> > to share local traffic to each other, I think it would not be a big
> deal. I
> > have already talked few days back regarding this issue with BTRC concern.
> > He suggest me to place this request and approval from BTRC. After that if
> > we can do connect IIG-IX to BD-IX then it would be more efective.
> >
> > In addition if we can accommodate BTCL with us then more traffic could be
> > saved.
> >
> > With Regards
> > Md. Shahidullah Kaisar (Shaikot)
> > Cell: +880-1730068833 Skype:shahidullah.kaisar
> >
> > *"There is no way out of learning. Make your work valuable and visible
> via
> > learning new technologies and ideas"*
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Mohibul Hasib Mahmud <mhasib at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Since Telcos are connected to IIGs, can IIGs take initiative to connect
> IX
> >> (may be technical details we can discuss separately). Although I don't
> know
> >>  regulatory guideline about this option.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hasib
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM, raskin paul <raskin_ece at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Pappu Bhai,
> >>>
> >>> Regarding Telco Connectivity with IX Airtel Bangladesh is already
> >>> connected from long time with BDIX.ds
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>>
> >>> Raskin
> >>> IBM Bangladesh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   On Monday, 25 November 2013, 2:22, Fakrul Alam <fakrul at bdhub.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>  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
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nog mailing list
> >>> nog at bdnog.org
> >>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nog mailing list
> >>> nog at bdnog.org
> >>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nog mailing list
> >> nog at bdnog.org
> >> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nog mailing list
> > nog at bdnog.org
> > http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> >
> _______________________________________________
> nog mailing list
> nog at bdnog.org
> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.bdnog.org/pipermail/nog/attachments/20131125/66932119/attachment-0001.html>

• Previous message: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
• Next message: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]