[Napla] Fw: Re: Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la lista

Thu Feb 16 12:13:03 BRST 2006

De hecho los creadores del NAP Lima son ISPs más pequeños que se reunieron y
conformaron este NAP, con la intención de encontrar una forma conjunta y de
costos compartidos, para conectarse al NAP.Perú.  No es un tema tanto de
empresas peruanas o empresas “extranjeras”, ya que ambas instituciones
reúnen a algunas empresas con matrices internacionales y ambas tienen
también proveedores de “nacionalidad” peruana.

La gran diferencia entre ambas es la actual cobertura. Como sabemos el valor
real de un NAP reside en la amplitud de redes de contenidos y de usuarios
Internet locales que cubre. Por la importancia de los actuales operadores
del NAP.Perú, esta red cubre más del 95% del Internet en el Perú. Es por
esta razón que los ISPs del NAP.Lima, nos han solicitado mecanismos para
poder hacer peering con el NAP.Perú y justamente estamos en coordinaciones
con ellos para ofrecerles una alternativa viable.

Respecto a los costos del NAP.Perú, no debemos confundir el tema de costos
de interconexión con los de ASOCIACIÓN. Los Asociados del NAP.Perú, quienes
son virtuales “propietarios” de la asociación y deciden su rumbo, han hecho
en efecto fuertes inversiones en esta institución, lo que nos ha permitido
tener una infraestructura muy avanzada y de gran calidad la cual incluso
ahora mismo está en proceso de total actualización (con una inversión por
parte del NAP.Perú de cerca de 100 mil dólares americanos). Este mismo
esfuerzo de nuestros asociados (Telmex Perú, Telefónica Empresas, COMSAT,
Infoductos y Telecomunicaciones del Perú, Movistar (ex Bellsouth), IMPSAT,
América Móvil Perú (Claro), y Americatel) nos está permitiendo invertir
tiempo y dinero en iniciativas de desarrollo de la Sociedad de la
Información y en campañas de comunicación a favor de todo el sector.

Saludos,

Yuri

Moderador – Lista NAP.LA

****************************************************************************
****
Yuri Herrera Burstein

NAP.Perú
Gerente General

*  <http://www.nap.pe/> www.nap.pe
*    yuri.herrera at nap.pe
*   (511) 712-0901 / 712-0902 

NAP.Perú ... Construyendo Juntos la Sociedad de la Información
****************************************************************************
****

  _____  

De: napla-bounces at lacnic.net [mailto:napla-bounces at lacnic.net] En nombre de
Jorge Evangelista
Enviado el: Miércoles, 15 de Febrero de 2006 10:29 p.m.
Para: napla at lacnic.net
Asunto: Re: [Napla] Fw: Re: Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado
actual de la lista

Me parece muy buena la experiencia en Chile, aqui en Peru si es alto el
costo de interconexion al NAP Perú, por lo que se ha creado un NAP paralelo
con empresas de telecomunicaciones nacionales, llamado el NAP Lima, ojala
todos los ISP se interconecten más adelante,  en beneficio para mejorar la
calidad. 

Saludos,

On 2/15/06, Adonaylo, Gabriel <Gabriel.Adonaylo at comsat.com.ar> wrote: 
Carlos, Bill y resto de la exquisita audiencia,

Quisiera aportar el trabajo realizado por un consultor del BID allá por 
Diciembre de 2003. Seguramente muchos de ustedes lo conocerán ya que para
confeccionar este informe o proyecto ha transitado por muchos de los países
Latinoamericanos y aprendiendo en cada uno de ellos como están constituídos 
los NAPs en nuestra región.

http://www.iadb.org/regions/re3/pdf/IIRSA0204.pdf

Dos comentarios al respecto: Seguramente contiene errores, como todo trabajo

de investigación, es dificil encontrar la perfección y objetividad total.
Por otro lado seguramente está desactualizado por tener poco más de dos
años.

Saludos,

Gabriel Adonaylo
Regional IP Product Manager 
Comsat International
mail to: gabriel.adonaylo at comsat.com.ar
Direct: +54-11-5354-6196 - Cell: +54-911-5452-1038
Nextel: 142*3434 - Skype: gadonay

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Silva @ csilva.net [mailto:csilva at csilva.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:28 PM
To: napla at lacnic.net
Subject: [Napla] Fw: Re: Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual
de la lista

Amigos, por error omití copiar a la lista en mi respuesta
a Bill.

Saludos

---------- Forwarded Message ----------- 
From: "Carlos Silva @ csilva.net" <csilva at csilva.net>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
Sent: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:19:38 -0600
Subject: Re: [Napla] Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la

lista

Bill!!!!

That's the feedback I've been trying to receive during the last two years 
since I wrote the paper!!!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I have no other response than really commiting to a careful review of your
points. At the moment my time is devoted to other activities. But Internet 
interconection is really the subject of study I'm focused on and I expect to
produce a new paper by the end of the year. Before that I certainly will
exchange a mail or two with you about the subject.

In the meantime: 

a) Sorry for ignoring this I'd never seen distinct definitions for IXP and
NAP, would you point me to some referencea?
b) There is a full list of references at the end of the paper for sources
about actual NAPs deployed, but gime me a couple of weeks and I'll give you 
more detail. I'm glad to see interest in maintaining an updated list.

Best Regards

Carlos

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:03:22 -0800 (PST), Bill Woodcock wrote
> First, my usual apology for replying in English.  My Spanish is 
> quite rudimentary, and would be insufficient to convey my thoughts here.
>
> I'm very much enjoying reading your paper.
>
> Your stance vis a vis QoS is not clear...  You seem to be suggesting 
> that it will enjoy some success in the future.  Is that in fact your
> position?  And if so, can you elaborate somewhat on your reasons?
>
> I'm also not quite clear on the nature of your disagreement with 
> Andrew Odlyzko.  That may be a language issue, for which you have my
> apology. In any event, if you say you have a disagreement with
> Andrew, that will raise many people's critical scrutiny, and you 
> should probably be prepared to both be very clear, and to defend
> what you're saying.  It would also be worthwhile speaking with
> Andrew directly, if you haven't already, to make sure that you're
> not misinterpreting what he's intending to say.
>
> Your points regarding a likely future in which metered-rate billing
> will become more predominant seem very well-made and well-supported.
> 
> In discussing the formation of the NAPs, you might mention that the
> MAE in Washington slightly pre-dated the NII NAPs, and was
> "grandfathered in" to the plan, unlike the others.  Its creation was 
> not promoted by the NSF, like the other three.  Also, you have a
> couple of translation errors in that paragraph...  "NFS" and "MAE Center."
>
> Throughout, you use the Latin American construction of "NAP" as 
> equivalent to IXP, as well as literally as NAP, and since NAP and
> IXP are not themselves equivalent in meaning, this construction is
> unlikely to be understood in the sense that you mean it, by readers 
> outside of Latin America.  About two-thirds of the way through the
> paper, you explicitly say "The ability to connect at local IXP's
> (sic) (Inter (sic) eXchange Points, i.e. NAP's(sic))" which would be 
> pretty universally recognized as factually incorrect.  So that
> should probably be disambiguated throughout, with the standard usage
> of IXP where you mean IXP, and NAP only where you literally mean NAP, 
>  rather than where you mean IXP.
>
> Your assertion that no Latin America operator is of sufficient scale,
> particularly relative to US or European operators, to make extra-
> regional acquisitions could be disputed, I think...  Telmex is 
> certainly of sufficient scale, and was in fact in acquisitions talks
> with XO, a major US "tier 1" carrier, at one point.
>
> You list the following quantities of IXPs in Latin American countries: 
>
>    Brazil: 8
>   Ecuador: 2
> Argentina: 1
>  Colombia: 1
>      Cuba: 1
>     Chile: 1
>      Peru: 1
>    Panama: 1
>  Paraguay: 1
>
> I'd very much like to compare notes, as I'm only aware of five 
> actually in operation in Brazil, would dispute the interpretation of
> ETECSA's transit service as an IXP based on what information I've
> had from them about it, but would be happy to learn otherwise...  Is 
> the Nicaraguan IX in Managua not actually in operation?  I show that
> it had ten participants in April of 2004...  Also, there are two in
> Equador, to the best of my knowledge: one in Quito with six 
> participants, and one in Guayaquil with six participants.  In
> addition, I have heard rumors of two other exchanges in Panama, and
> one other in Argentina, one other in Chile, and one other in
> Colombia, all of which would be useful to put to rest, if possible. 
> Since you don't cite your sources for your list of IXPs, and it
> clearly wasn't coming from our directory, I'd be very curious as to
> where your information was coming from, so I can check any
> discrepancies and update our directory where necessary. 
>
> All in all, this is an excellent paper, and I'm very happy to see
> it.  Please let me know if I or my staff can be of any help in
> running down references or figures.
>
>                                 -Bill 

Saludos,

-cs
csilva at csilva.net
------- End of Forwarded Message -------

Saludos,

-cs
csilva at csilva.net _______________________________________________
Napla mailing list
Napla at lacnic.net
http://lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/napla 
_______________________________________________
Napla mailing list
Napla at lacnic.net
http://lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/napla 

-- 
"The network is the computer" 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/napla/attachments/20060216/770bcbeb/attachment.html>