[bdNOG] IX and Local Peering

Jahangir Hossain jrjahangir at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 14:55:53 BDT 2013


The idea of two types of IX sound nice but before that we need to mutually
agree on this solution or find out the  common platform by discussion
specially  who are not connect with IX.

We already know  couple of provider  try act as a IX by considering their
license  which related to NIX . so we also need to discuss among us
specially Government, IIGs, ISPs and Telcos and try to understand what they
are  thinking  and what would be government role to resolve this?

I think initially,we can arrange round table discussion where government ,
IIGs, ISPs , Tescos and other provider would be present and finalize the
solution which would be better for our country .

At last my personal option , we need mutual trust , respect, co-operation
and guide line from all stakeholder who are related to this for resolve IX
issue .  :)




Regards  //  Jahangir






On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Aniruddha Barua said the following on 26/11/13 02:44 :
> >
> > If the primary goal of an IX is to keep local traffic local, then I
> think there can be two
> > tiers/levels at BDIX, one for Transit Providers i.e. IIGs and the other
> for the ISPs (inclduing ISP
> > customers with own ASNs). IIGs will exchange their own prefixes as well
> as their customers' (ISPs
> > and ISPs' customers) prefixes with other IIGs only. ISPs will exchange
> their and their customers'
> > prefixes with the other ISPs and other institutions peering with BDIX
> but not with the IIGs.
>
> Yes, you are right! It doesn't even have to be specifically two tiers,
> there can be many. At an IX, everyone is free to peer with whoever they
> want to. So you find that small providers will peer with each other, big
> providers will peer with each other, but you will find that big
> providers will more than likely not peer with small providers (as the
> latter tend to be customers of the former). Content providers at IXes
> will usually peer with everyone, as this means they have most direct
> access to as many end-users connected via IX members.
>
> > Being an ISP in Chittagong, while tracing route to Dhaka Stock Exchange,
> we used to see our packets
> > first go to Chennai, then to Singapore, then to Europe, then to perhaps
> Malaysia (don't remember),
> > then again India and then at last Dhaka. Even now, I see packets first
> go to Dhaka (our upstream
> > IIG), then to Mumbai, then come back to Dhaka another IIG, then Dhaka
> ISP and at last DSE. If there
>
> Wow, crazy. :-( Yes, we have to find a way to avoid this.
>
> > were prefix exchanges between the IIGs through BDIX, this could be
> avoided.
>
> Agreed.
>
> philip
> --
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ANIRUDDHA BARUA
> > Email: aniruddha.barua at colbd.com, cto at colbd.com
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From: Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>
> > To: <nog at bdnog.org>
> > Sent: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:51:31 +1000
> > Subject: Re: [bdNOG] IX and Local Peering
> >
> >> Fakrul Alam said the following on 25/11/13 17:32 :
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Right. An IIG is a transit provider, not an IX. Be aware, many transit
> >> providers pretend/market that they are IXes. If they charge for traffic
> >> they are not an IX, simple.
> >>
> >> So yes, an IIG could connect to the IX, but they'd peer their ASN with
> >> the other ASNs participating in the IX.
> >>
> >> But, it's more realistic/normal for the customers of the IIG to connect
> >> to the IX too - that way domestic traffic doesn't go through a transit
> >> network of the international transit provider. So if there are still
> >> customers of the IIG(s) who are not connected to the IX, let's make some
> >> effort to encourage them to save money, increase through put and improve
> >> the performance of their domestic traffic. :-)
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> And that is why the IX is the place to be for domestic interconnect. :-)
> >>
> >>> 3. AFAIK, BDIX right now only allow IIG originated prefix (^$); not
> >>> customer prefix. If this is the case, only upload traffic will be gone
> >>> via IX; return packet will follow internet.
> >>
> >> Why would would BDIX do this? They are an ethernet switch, and those
> >> tend not to do BGP policy. Perhaps the IIG is doing the ^$ ?
> >>
> >> philip
> >> --
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nog mailing list
> >> nog at bdnog.org
> >> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131126/c239bb03/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the nog mailing list