Dear Salim,
Thanks for your update, and a very good news. Your customers
must be enjoying the benefits of peering with UAE (tracert sent by Moeen
Aqrabawi):
> C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om
>
> Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
> 1 2 ms
2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
> 2 33 ms 22
ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25
> 3 42 ms 22
ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195
> 4 46 ms 23
ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121
> 5 39 ms 22
ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138
> 6 43 ms 23
ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241
> 7 38 ms 22
ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76
> 8 42 ms 35
ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 <EMIX>
> 9 50 ms 33
ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22
> 10 53 ms 32
ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142
> 11 62 ms 38
ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]
>
> Trace complete.
Hope Oman will soon have similar direct peering with Qatar and other
regional countries. Below is a tracert from Qatar
to Oman
(the latency is reaching upto 700ms.)
C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om
Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1
ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 16 ms 16
ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166
3 15 ms 16
ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25
4 17 ms 17
ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186
5 16 ms 20
ms 17 ms 82.148.96.202
6 19 ms 16
ms 16 ms 82.148.97.66
7 251 ms 251
ms 250 ms 12.119.94.77
8 251 ms 251
ms 250 ms 12.123.33.62
9 254 ms 252
ms 252 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121]
10 251 ms 249
ms 249 ms 12.123.20.201
11 240 ms 242
ms 239 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118]
12 240 ms 242
ms 243 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54]
13 247 ms 241
ms 240 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6]
14 240 ms 241
ms 240 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38]
15 244 ms 243
ms 245 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122]
16 243 ms 240
ms 241 ms bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202]
17 240 ms 241
ms 240 ms bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121]
18 242 ms 242
ms 241 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10]
19 528 ms 525
ms 527 ms omantel.pos3-2.ar03.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.13.134]
20 536 ms 528
ms 534 ms 82.178.32.21
21 614 ms 606
ms 633 ms 62.231.254.130
22 700 ms 685
ms 663 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]
Trace complete.
Regards,
Malik
From: Salim Bader Al
Mazrui [mailto:salim@localhost]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:55 PM
To: John Leong; mawan@localhost; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi;
Saleem Albalooshi
Cc:
ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost MAJEED@localhost
Subject: RE:
[ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering
Dear
colleagues;
I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform
you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th May
using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each other. In
the business sector, many establishments communicate with their regional
offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently seeing
over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer.
Regards
Salim Bader Al-Mazrui
Director Informatics Unit
Networks & Technology
Oman Telecommunications Company
Tel: +968-631881
Fax: +968-695482
GSM: +968-99423279
-----Original Message-----
From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost on behalf of John Leong
Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM
To: mawan@localhost; 'Salman
Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi'
; MAJEED@localhost
Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering
Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from
Malik. VoIP.
My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is
totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP
traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care.
However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a
lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries.
In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission
Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests
to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable
depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Malik Awan
To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi'
Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost ;
MAJEED@localhost
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering
So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within
the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic.
Regards,
Malik
you are here: home -> Mailing Lists
