[bdNOG] IX and Local Peering

Mohibul Hasib Mahmud mhasib at gmail.com
Mon Nov 25 12:54:17 BDT 2013


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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.bdnog.org/pipermail/nog/attachments/20131125/3e4f6e83/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the nog mailing list