[LACNIC/Napla] Lacnic XII / NAPLA - Q & A

Roque Gagliano roque at lacnic.net
Wed Jun 3 12:48:10 BRT 2009


Here is my personal opinion on this matter.

There IS already NAP interconnection option in our region, it is  
called Global Crossing or TWIS or Nautilis, etc. now witn Internexa  
there will have another option and with this, cost may (I do not want  
to say should as you gave the example of Colombian costs to the  
landing station in the meeting) go down and ISPs in the region may  
think about deploying equipments in several countries. Moreover, with  
Ethernet over MPLS, they could even remotely connect to a NAP port  
without having to install equipments at the NAP premise. This is the  
way regional interconnectivity has happened in other region, finding  
one or more meeting points inside the region that make sense  
economically and technically to the ISPs. The question is if our NAP's  
policies are adequate for these scenario. I believe some are (such as  
the new CABASE policies) but some are not.

My problem with NAP (privately owned or community owned) subsiding an  
international link is the ability to this process to be sustainable in  
time ($) and to have a NAP that is competing with its own members. If  
as an ISP I will trust the NAP "network" to forward my packets in the  
region, can I sign a SLA?, will I have any alternative path?



On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:37 PM, <gabriel.adonaylo at bt.com> <gabriel.adonaylo at bt.com 
 > wrote:

> Woddy,
> Thanks for your answers here. We have already discussed about this  
> topics in different events such as IGFs but not sure tho' if it has  
> been covered before in NAPLA meetings.
> IMHO, there's interesting initiatives around traffic routing  
> analysis on a regional level, but I do not find that the result  
> would be interconnect IXPs but make use available information to  
> make own decisions in order to improve intra-regional private  
> backbones if there's any need to.
> As you've just mentioned, it's a matter of Internet architecture and  
> the matter of interconnecting IXPs is clearly against "nature".
> Would like to read more comments about this topic.
> Cheers,
> Gabriel.
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: napla-bounces at lacnic.net [mailto:napla-bounces at lacnic.net] En  
> nombre de Bill Woodcock
> Enviado el: Martes, 02 de Junio de 2009 06:13 p.m.
> Para: Lista de operadores de NAP/IXP de la regió n
> Asunto: Re: [LACNIC/Napla] Lacnic XII / NAPLA - Q & A
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 1:36 PM, <gabriel.adonaylo at bt.com> wrote:
>> There's always been an idea to interconnect IXPs between different
>> countries in the region and of course a debate around these
>> initiatives. As I noticed that one of the speakers mentioned this
>> topic once again I thought it was a good idea to re-open the
>> discussion taking advantage of your presence in the meeting...
> I would strongly second Serge's remarks.  In my experience, the idea  
> of "interconnecting IXPs" inevitably springs up periodically, in  
> every region.  It's always the brain-wave of someone smart and well-  
> intentioned, but who doesn't clearly grasp the economic structure of  
> the Internet.
> Interconnecting IXPs turns the IXPs into a layer-2 carrier, and  
> destroys the IXPs in the process.  This is very nearly definitional,  
> in fact.
> So anyone who's deriving value from an IXP should oppose any  
> attempts to convert it, since that will both reduce and privatize  
> the value of the IXP.  It takes a large public good, and converts it  
> to (at best) a small private good.  Speaking in a more global  
> political and economic context, we've already seen enough of that  
> sort of behavior in the last decade, and already seen what it does  
> to the economic environment that we work within.
>> De: napla-bounces at lacnic.net [mailto:napla-bounces at lacnic.net] En
>> nombre de Serge Radovcic Enviado el: Martes, 02 de Junio de 2009  
>> 07:45
>> a.m.
>> Para: Lista de operadores de NAP/IXP de la regió n
>> Asunto: Re: [LACNIC/Napla] Lacnic XII / NAPLA - Q & A
>> Oops!!
>> I think I was writing a little too quickly....Just to be clear......
>> I meant to say that there is "NO" trend of IXPs interconnecting and
>> that the members of association run IXPs would be "STRONGLY OPPOSED"
>> to such interconnection plans.
>> Serge
>> On 6/2/09 12:34 PM, "Serge Radovcic" <serge at euro-ix.net> wrote:
>>> In general the answer would be "no". And I would say that there is
>>> even a trend or plan for this to be the case.
>>> There are a very few, and I mean around five of the 110 IXPs in
>>> Europe that have initiated such interconnection plans over the  
>>> years,
>>> a few of these have been commercial internet exchanges and one of
>>> them had quite a bit of success in doing this, while the others that
>>> have gone down this road have been 'government' run IXPs that were
>>> looking to connect local government networks with each other, this
>>> was generally done on a regional or sometimes national level.
>>> Most IXPs in Europe tend to be associations and their policies are
>>> generally directly or indirectly put in place by their membership.
>>> And
>>> many of their members would not be strongly opposed to such plans of
>>> connecting IXPs, mainly for the reason that they feel that they  
>>> would
>>> be losing business through these connections and that the IXP would
>>> now be in competition with them on a regional, national or even
>>> international scale.
>>> So how does the Latin American IXP community feel about
>>> interconnecting IXPs? Have their been attempts in the past to do
>>> this?
>>> Are there some planning to do this?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Napla mailing list
>> Napla at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/napla
>> _______________________________________________
>> Napla mailing list
>> Napla at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/napla
>                                 -Bill
> _______________________________________________
> Napla mailing list
> Napla at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/napla

Roque Gagliano
roque at lacnic.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/napla/attachments/20090603/2fd16eff/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/napla/attachments/20090603/2fd16eff/attachment.sig>

More information about the Napla mailing list