[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 ]

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
> 

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