[bdNOG] IX and Local Peering

Sat Nov 23 15:38:29 BDT 2013

As far as my knowledge BDIX is not a commercial IX like Equinix who
provide carrier-neutral data centers and internet exchanges. It only
provide interconnection switch-port for local ISPs. So following few point
in summary:

1. To facilitate any content through the peering path, CDN need to be
connect to BDIX and be a peering partner (what I mean is not hosted in
BDIX premises, cz not sure whether they have the facility).
2. As Pappu mentioned IIG need to export prefix originated locally from
their AS (I.e regexp ^$) and import prefix originated by their peer (I.e.
_peers$) only. If IIG permit import/export for local customer prefix also,
it would be awesome. But business case will be complicated because between
two local customer they will be on transit.
3. I am not sure whether BDIX has got open peering policy or not I.e. Its
open to anyone to join. ISPs, Telco, Bank, University etc. Business
interest need to be protected by peering policy I.e Bi-lateral Peering
Agreement (BLPA) or Multilateral Peering Agreement (MLPA). If they are
happy peer with route server (MLPA) or individual peering (BLPA).

Its just my thought. According to list charter any posting in bdNOG is
personal comments. Not the organisation we are working for. :)

Regards

Roman  

On 23/11/13 6:32 PM, "Fakrul Alam" <fakrul at bdhub.com> wrote:

>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> 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> 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>
>>>>>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) 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nog at bdnog.org');>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> nog mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *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 <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
>>>>> 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