RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Assalaom Alekum to all,

Good discussion, and nice to see many perspectives on regional peering. Does anyone have a map of existing IP connectivity in the GCC region (showing all Peering/ Transit arrangements) along with the latency, Router hops and AS-Path counts for traffic within GCC providers? Also, how much traffic gets exchanged among the GCC providers? Such data would be very useful to make a business case and show the value proposition. Please see attached excel spreadsheet for a matrix template.

Below are some traceroutes to few destinations in the GCC countries. This gives some indication of how traffic is routing from Qatar to others in the region, others are welcome to share their traceroutes.

To keep the traces short, I have trimmed first four hops, as those are internal and less relevant.

==============QATAR-TO-UAE==================

C:\>tracert www.etisalat.co.ae

Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

5 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.206

6 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.66

7 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.162

8 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 198.32.72.33

9 339 ms 340 ms 340 ms 195.229.28.13

10 356 ms 356 ms 360 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66]

11 358 ms 353 ms 365 ms 195.229.0.90

12 340 ms 345 ms 345 ms 213.42.0.51

13 339 ms 333 ms 357 ms 213.42.25.85

Trace complete.

==============QATAR-TO-KUWAIT================

c:\>tracert www.kt.com.kw

Tracing route to kt.com.kw [195.226.228.4]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

5 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.206

6 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.66

7 1 ms 2 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.162

8 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 198.32.72.33

9 339 ms 339 ms 339 ms 195.229.28.13

10 371 ms 356 ms 356 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67]

11 333 ms 362 ms 358 ms 195.229.31.107

12 223 ms 223 ms 223 ms 195.229.29.58

13 225 ms 225 ms 227 ms 62.150.200.2

14 228 ms 227 ms 227 ms ns1.qnethosting.com [195.226.228.4]

Trace complete.

==============QATAR-TO-OMAN==================

C:\>tracert omantel.net.om

Tracing route to omantel.net.om [212.72.23.54]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

5 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.137

6 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.202

7 63 ms 3 ms 1 ms 82.148.97.66

8 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 212.77.200.169

9 231 ms 231 ms 259 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42]

10 234 ms 231 ms 233 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17]

11 232 ms 231 ms 233 ms if-9-0.mcore3.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.57.45]

12 231 ms 238 ms 232 ms if-1-0.core1.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.57.2]

13 * 233 ms 232 ms if-0-0-0.bb2.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [207.45.221.37]

14 232 ms 232 ms 232 ms ix-4-0-0.bb2.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.230.26]

15 447 ms 445 ms 446 ms 82.178.32.153

16 447 ms 445 ms 446 ms 82.178.32.85

17 446 ms 445 ms 447 ms 62.231.254.162

18 460 ms 447 ms 445 ms webhost.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.54]

Trace complete.

==============QATAR-TO-SAUDI ARABIA===========

C:\>tracert www.astra.com.sa

Tracing route to www.astra.com.sa [212.12.160.12]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

5 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.137

6 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.202

7 3 ms 3 ms 5 ms 82.148.97.66

8 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 212.77.200.169

9 232 ms 232 ms 232 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42]

10 231 ms 259 ms 232 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17]

11 * 244 ms 232 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.63.33]

12 233 ms 232 ms 233 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.178]

13 349 ms 349 ms 348 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211]

14 911 ms 935 ms 1002 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198]

15 896 ms 907 ms 904 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23]

16 * 901 ms 910 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54]

17 904 ms 904 ms 908 ms mx2.nournet.com.sa [212.12.160.12]

Trace complete.

==============QATAR-TO-BAHRAIN===========

C:\>tracert www.banagas.com.bh

Tracing route to www.banagas.com.bh [193.188.101.18]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

5 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.137

6 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 82.148.96.181

7 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 82.148.96.254

8 218 ms 220 ms 221 ms 212.77.216.254

9 215 ms 224 ms 221 ms 217.17.233.69

10 221 ms 250 ms 215 ms 217.17.233.69

11 732 ms 670 ms 682 ms 193.188.104.46

12 691 ms 773 ms 666 ms 193.188.101.2

13 586 ms 585 ms 547 ms 193.188.101.18

Trace complete.

=====================================================

Best regards,

Malik Awan

From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost] On Behalf Of Salman Al-Mannai
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi
Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Furthermore,

John has illustrated an extreme case of the little intra traffic, that may not prove the economy of the peering, I think the reason is:

1. most of the Web sites are hosted in the use (99% of them !), why? simply because, web hosting is offered much cheaper, abandons of bandwidth, etc. my focus here is on the abandons of bandwidth.

2. there is no simple mean by which we can identify the traffic whither it is destined to a neighbor or outside - without a detailed analysis, so we are not in a position to tell how much traffic we are exchange among each other.

3. Key contents providers are hosting their contents in places outside, mainly for political reasons, but many for technical reasons, I'm sure if that technical limitation is lifted, we might see at least 50% of contents providers coming back home.

-- let us have the chicken that lays the eggs (make'em gold please).

regards

From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost on behalf of Salman Al-Mannai
Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:44 PM
To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi
Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Thanks Fahad,

I feel we need to physically get together and have real serious discussions on how to go forward.

The issue pertaining to 'tracert': my analogy is that the traffic may not flow through the shortest route, rather the optimum, this is one, two, I don't find 2 MB between UAE and Bahrain, or any two countries for that matter, is something good to celebrate for, this is the bandwidth I have at home. I sometimes find the reports produced by MRTG are missleading , the bottem line, FOG is already in place, and I can confidently say, it is accoumilating 'age' ea. wasted bandwidth.

We have so far, managed to peer with UAE (Qtel <-> Etisalat) over DS3 (45 Mbs) - I still find it too little, perhaps we upgrade to STM-1, or even STM-4 if someone can initiate more applications (such as e-gov, e-trade with businesses in both countries, media stuff, etc.), Abdulla Hashem from eCompany and myslef have tried to initiate the same with BIX, that has not completed yet!.

The idea is let us just have that thick pipe among GCC in place, and we let the business to realize its potential and start filling it up, I'm sure there are many marketing guys out there who will find it a business opportunity and will probably come back to us for more.

regards

From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad@localhost]
Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:30 PM
To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Saleem Albalooshi'
Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Salman,

We have indeed discussed those contents and this approach. I think I agree with you and your proposal more than any other. It is the best setup overall and allows for significant diversity in the connectivity and the peering arrangements.

Saleem,

The issue is not if there exists a peering link. Yes, it is there. However, as I sit here in Bahrain and tracert a site in the UAE, I still go via the US. I don’t think this is because the setup is not right. I think it is simply because a 2Mbps peering link cannot handle the volume of traffic that needs to flow in between our countries.

Of course, I have no statistics on usage of those links and I don’t put the full blame on the bandwidth, but I do think we need to do something about it. I’m seconding Salman’s proposal and saying we don’t need to wait for a GCC telecom committee to get together to do this. Especially since not everyone involved is a member of such a committee.

Regards,

Fahad.

-----Original Message-----
From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai@localhost]
Sent: 24 May 2006 11:10
To: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi
Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Dear Saleem and Fahad,

I do understand Fahad's concenrs, that is why I'm for the IX-IX peering appraoch in the GCC, this matter has been pursued by Saleem and Mr. Aabdulla Hashem. however, we still need some political levrage in order to proceed (ea. to be put on the agenda of one of the GCC telecom committees, and then to be enforced by the respective regulator).

second, the idea of pursuing a NAP/NSP, this is purely a commercial descission that is typically assessed from financial feasiblity perspective, while peering will make sense for the obvious reasons that have been mentioned in several ocasions.

I also don't find it proper to establish one common place for peer-ers to exchange traffic (ea. GCC IXP) while it may save on linking costs, it may also become an operational burden on the host, and may again add to the cost. my suggestion is to have adjacent peering among niebourghing operators (ex. Oman<->UAE<->Qatar<->Bahrain<->Kuwait<->Saudi Arabia<->Oman - back)

I don't meen to set you back by mentioning the above, I just wanted to illusterate situation, I've already passed a presentation (which was done in part by Saleem, he has already given references to his past work on this) which I don't mind sharing with you, if Saleem does not mind.

NB: Fahad, we have already discussed the contents of the presentation in January.

regards

From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi
Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM
To: Fahad AlShirawi
Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

Dear Fahad,
Thank you very much for your valuable participation.

The good new is that all the main ISP's in the GCC countries are already
interconnected since 2004.

Below are some documents that may help in understanding the peering
status between the GCC countries.

http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/en/Meetings/first/Presentations.html
http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/wgs/ae_kw.html
http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/Files/gcc_peering_update.ppt

What I now is that Etisalat has built an excellent peering connectivity
with most of the countries in the region, for example:
1. All GCC countries (Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman)
2. India
3. Singapore
4. Malaysia
5. Cypris
6. Taiwan
7. Japan
8. Hong Kong
9. Sudan
Also with some international Exchange points i.e LINEX and NYIIX.

and Much more,
Mr. Moeen Aqrabawi, could you please help in updating us on the status
of the Peering connectivity from the UAE.

We need to here from other members in this list on the peering
connectivity from their countries.

Best Regards,
Saleem
UAEnic

Fahad AlShirawi wrote:

>My first contribution to this mailing list:
>
>John,
>
>While I definitely agree with your assessment, there are issues in the
>GCC that sadly make peering a dream we are all waiting for but are very
>unlikely to realize any time soon. On one hand, the PTTs are all looking
>to peer with each other, while at the same time are wary of each other.
>The only two countries I know off that have appropriate direct peering
>are the Emarites and Qatar. Even that is only something I heard and I am
>not actually sure off. In any case, when a new player indicates interest
>in a peering arrangement, the propose IP Transit. It's the mentality of:
>We are big and you are small, why do you need peering? Just take IP
>Transit from us.
>
>On the other hand, bandwidth to the US, once you hit a landing point, is
>a lot cheaper than bandwidth controlled by monopolies in the GCC. There
>are no IRUs currently between GCC countries and the first cable system
>of its kind that will allow someone other than the monopolies to own
>capacity is... Well, Falcon, but god knows when Falcon will be complete.
>It's over a year late now. Additionally, in some countries, because FLAG
>partnered with the PTTs there, they will not sell capacity directly to a
>competitor of the PTT but will leave it up to the PTT to control. Their
>argument, said in private, is that they can't anger their partners by
>selling to a competitor of theirs. Publicly, their position is this: You
>don't need the capacity. We are trying to help you. Don't take it.
>
>When you insist you do, you are ignored.
>
>As to the NAP issue, there are people working on building one and then
>attempting to attract the business. I know Mr. Ahmad AlHujairi who I
>believe is a member of this list is doing just that with Gulf Gateway
>Internet. I wish them all the luck and success. I would like to see this
>happen and I would like to see peering become a reality. Still, I think
>they are a long way away from that kind of success.
>
>In any case, so far, I feel that STC in Saudi is the most open to
>negotiations and discussion.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Fahad.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@localhost
>[

] On Behalf Of John Leong
>Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58
>To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
>Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering
>
>
>Sorry for the late response. Yes, it is totally inefficient (and
>strange)
>to have traffic between the GCC countries to go through the US.
>
>Not only will it add latency you are also unecessary using up some very
>expensive long haul bandwidth. BTW: On latency, while the longer round
>
>trip propagation delay is clearly a factor, the real pain is additional
>router hops. Routers are real nasty since besides queueing delay, they
>are
>congestion points. The impact of packet loss [on TCP] is orders of
>magnitude more than any propagation delay, since you will have to pay
>the
>direct penality of time out [to discover you have lost a packet] as well
>as
>suffer longer term side effect of having you transmission window
>reduced.
>
>In any event, you should peer with each other within the GCC. From
>engineering point of view, NAP makes a lot of sense. However,
>practically,
>most of the ISPs do bi-lateral rather than multilateral peering at a
>single
>location so the NAP's role is somewhat diminished.
>
>Best regards,
>John
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Saleem Albalooshi" saleem@localhost
>To: ncc-regional-middle-east@localhost
>Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:26 AM
>Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering
>
>
>
>
>>Dear All,
>>Kindly find below a writeup about the importance of establishing
>>
>>
>peering
>
>
>>connectivity between the regional ISP's, please feel free to correct
>>
>>
>or
>
>
>>comment on any technical or linguistic information in the writeup
>>
>>
>below.
>
>
>>Saleem Al-Balooshi
>>UAEnic
>>
>>
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>
>
>
>
>

******************************************************************

The information in this email and any attachments thereto, may

contain information that is confidential, protected by

intellectual property rights, and may be legally privileged. It

is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by

anyone else is unauthorized. Any use, disclosure, copying, or

distribution of the information contained herein by persons other

than the designated addressee is unauthorized and may be

unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you should

delete this message immediately from your system. If you believe

that you have received this email in error, please contact the

sender or ictQATAR at + 974 (4) 935 922.

Any views expressed in this email or its attachments are those of

the individual sender except where the sender, expressly and with

authority, states them to be the views of ictQATAR.

******************************************************************

The information in this email and any attachments thereto, may

contain information that is confidential, protected by

intellectual property rights, and may be legally privileged. It

is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by

anyone else is unauthorized. Any use, disclosure, copying, or

distribution of the information contained herein by persons other

than the designated addressee is unauthorized and may be

unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you should

delete this message immediately from your system. If you believe

that you have received this email in error, please contact the

sender or ictQATAR at + 974 (4) 935 922.

Any views expressed in this email or its attachments are those of

the individual sender except where the sender, expressly and with

authority, states them to be the views of ictQATAR.

******************************************************************

The information in this email and any attachments thereto, may

contain information that is confidential, protected by

intellectual property rights, and may be legally privileged. It

is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by

anyone else is unauthorized. Any use, disclosure, copying, or

distribution of the information contained herein by persons other

than the designated addressee is unauthorized and may be

unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you should

delete this message immediately from your system. If you believe

that you have received this email in error, please contact the

sender or ictQATAR at + 974 (4) 935 922.

Any views expressed in this email or its attachments are those of

the individual sender except where the sender, expressly and with

authority, states them to be the views of ictQATAR.


	About RIPE NCC \| Service Announcements \| Site Map \| LIR Portal \| About RIPE \| Contact \| Legal \| Copyright Statement