From contact at ripe.net Thu Jun 1 12:41:28 2006 From: contact at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Contact) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:41:28 +0200 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] How to subscribe to this mailing list Message-ID: <20060601124128.5a5504c4.contact@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, This mailing list is open to all interested parties. Please pass on the link below to anyone you think may want to participate in this mailing list. Subscribe to this mailing list by following instructions at: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-regional-middle-east If you have any other questions about the list, please e-mail: Regards, Camilla Meidell Conference Coordinator RIPE NCC From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Thu Jun 1 13:46:31 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:46:31 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: I can not keep up with you guys! by the way, I've tried few from Doha-IX site, (www.doha-ix.qa), I found some interesting results, however, since you guys are the expert, I need you to tell me how efficient it is to use Doha-IX site for such measurement. Router: Doha-IX Command: traceroute www.kt.com.kw Tracing the route to ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) 1 198.32.72.33 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 195.229.28.13 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae (195.229.31.99) [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 4 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.107 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 5 195.229.29.58 [AS 8961 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 6 62.150.200.2 [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 7 ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 24 msec 24 msec Could find way to obtain the test for other just getting *'s, you may try. regards ________________________________ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Malik Awan Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 1:28 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: 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 at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:30 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 11:10 To: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net >[mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Leong >Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58 >To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >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" >To: >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. ****************************************************************** 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From contact at ripe.net Thu Jun 1 14:18:01 2006 From: contact at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:18:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Bahrain 14 =?windows-1252?Q?=96_15_?= =?windows-1252?Q?November_2006?= Message-ID: <447EDAF9.5040003@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Manama, Bahrain will take place on 14 ? 15 November 2006. The meeting will be held in the Radisson SAS hotel. The RIPE NCC Regional Meetings enable us to get valuable feedback from our members. The meetings also facilitate direct contact between the RIPE NCC, our members and key players in the region?s Internet industry. The RIPE NCC Regional Meetings are free of charge and anyone can attend. ----------------- Presentations We invite you to submit proposals for presentations. If you have any suggestions for topics that may be of interest to the region?s local Internet community, please submit a proposal, in English, to . ------------------------- Further Information More information about RIPE NCC Regional Meetings can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/index.html Archived Regional Meeting mailing lists are available at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/mailing-lists.html If you have any other please e-mail: Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC From mawan at cmu.edu Fri Jun 2 08:54:01 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:54:01 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c68611$54cf8510$8419c2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear Salman, I cannot access this Doha-IX site, can you please check the link again (or is this only internally accessible to Qtel?). The traceroute you sent is useful as it shows the AS number info for each hop. Regards, Malik _____ From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:47 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I can not keep up with you guys! by the way, I've tried few from Doha-IX site, (www.doha-ix.qa), I found some interesting results, however, since you guys are the expert, I need you to tell me how efficient it is to use Doha-IX site for such measurement. Router: Doha-IX Command: traceroute www.kt.com.kw Tracing the route to ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) 1 198.32.72.33 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 195.229.28.13 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae (195.229.31.99) [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 4 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.107 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 5 195.229.29.58 [AS 8961 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 6 62.150.200.2 [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 7 ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 24 msec 24 msec Could find way to obtain the test for other just getting *'s, you may try. regards _____ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Malik Awan Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 1:28 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: 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 at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:30 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 11:10 To: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net >[mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Leong >Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58 >To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >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" >To: >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. ****************************************************************** 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 47470 bytes Desc: not available URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Sat Jun 3 21:28:00 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:28:00 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Dear Brother Saleem, It is always pleasant to see your comments and contribution in this forum. My colleague in Qtel, Faisal Babu, has adapted an interesting peering method, whereby he has passively configured the Doha-IX (http://www.doha-ix.qa) in such away that routes can be managed by the respective peering partner, as far as I understood, this method is currently being adapted on the UAE-QATAR peering link. It is a real world implementation of the topology seen in the presentation recently posted by Sultan (www.gcc-itrc.ae). I'm not really sure if everyone is pro the complemented ring topology, or if it has been adapted elsewhere, but is a definitely cost effective. I leave the details to Faisal, if any is interested. regards ****************************************************************** 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Mon Jun 5 13:10:21 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:10:21 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Malik, I've just checked with Jafar, This site is only accessible by peering partners, and is not intended for public, you can access it if you're on the QF segment. regards ________________________________ From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: Fri 6/2/2006 9:54 AM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear Salman, I cannot access this Doha-IX site, can you please check the link again (or is this only internally accessible to Qtel?). The traceroute you sent is useful as it shows the AS number info for each hop. Regards, Malik ________________________________ From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:47 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I can not keep up with you guys! by the way, I've tried few from Doha-IX site, (www.doha-ix.qa), I found some interesting results, however, since you guys are the expert, I need you to tell me how efficient it is to use Doha-IX site for such measurement. Router: Doha-IX Command: traceroute www.kt.com.kw Tracing the route to ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) 1 198.32.72.33 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 195.229.28.13 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 3 dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae (195.229.31.99) [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 4 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.107 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 195.229.31.74 [AS 8961 ] 12 msec 5 195.229.29.58 [AS 8961 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 6 62.150.200.2 [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 20 msec 24 msec 7 ns.kt.com.kw (195.226.228.4) [AS 9155 ] 24 msec 24 msec 24 msec Could find way to obtain the test for other just getting *'s, you may try. regards ________________________________ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Malik Awan Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 1:28 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: 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 at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net 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 at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:30 PM To: Salman Al-Mannai; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 11:10 To: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net >[mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Leong >Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58 >To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >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" >To: >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. ****************************************************************** 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From service.provisionig.spoc at bt.com Fri Jun 2 13:57:57 2006 From: service.provisionig.spoc at bt.com (service.provisionig.spoc at bt.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:57:57 +0100 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] RE: [local-ir]RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Bahrain 14 - 15 November 2006 Message-ID: -----Mensaje original----- De: local-ir-admin at ripe.net [mailto:local-ir-admin at ripe.net] En nombre de Paul Rendek Enviado el: jueves, 01 de junio de 2006 14:18 Para: local-ir at ripe.net; ripe-list at ripe.net; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Asunto: [local-ir]RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Bahrain 14 - 15 November 2006 [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Manama, Bahrain will take place on 14 - 15 November 2006. The meeting will be held in the Radisson SAS hotel. The RIPE NCC Regional Meetings enable us to get valuable feedback from our members. The meetings also facilitate direct contact between the RIPE NCC, our members and key players in the region's Internet industry. The RIPE NCC Regional Meetings are free of charge and anyone can attend. ----------------- Presentations We invite you to submit proposals for presentations. If you have any suggestions for topics that may be of interest to the region's local Internet community, please submit a proposal, in English, to . ------------------------- Further Information More information about RIPE NCC Regional Meetings can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/index.html Archived Regional Meeting mailing lists are available at: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/mailing-lists.html If you have any other please e-mail: Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Fri Jun 2 15:46:07 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:46:07 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4476CF9C.7020400@eim.ae> Message-ID: <033501c6864a$e636a2c0$0b01000a@FahadLaptop> Oh Wow, I feel a little hurt. This is the second time ARISPA mentions Batelco from Bahrain when we've been more active in this list, in RIPE, and more actively pushing for peering ;) Come on ARISPA at least make us feel like we count as much as them ;) Anyway, just kidding. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Abdulla A. Hashim Sent: 26 May 2006 12:51 To: Salman Al-Mannai Cc: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi; John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; Anwar El Yafi; Khalid Esmaeil; Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil; Waleed Al-Qallaf; Fahad Al-hussain; Feras Bakour Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear All: I believe all of us strongly support the peering concepts between various ISPs and IXs in the region due to many benefits that such peering can bring. Let me also advise you ; that the ARISPA ( Arab Regional ISPs Association ) which formally recently formed ; is discussing such topics but on the Arab region level ; the objective of this initiative or idea is to establish first exchange point in key geographical areas in the arab region and then establish peering between these regional IXs. I might ask Abdulaziz AL Helayyil ( the secretariat of ARISPA ) or Khalid Esmaeil ( from Etisalat and one of the peering member of ARISPA ) to explain more about this initiative. Also; we officially through this email ; as a Vice President of ARISPA board ask all the ISPs to join ARISPA ; such association is addressing all the cooperation matters among the Arab ISPs with the objective to improve and enhance the internet industry in the region. Thanks and looking forward to see Qtel; Kanartel; Batelco and others joining this Association. Salman Al-Mannai wrote: 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 at ripe.net on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM To: Fahad AlShirawi Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net 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 at ripe.net >[mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Leong >Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58 >To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >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" >To: >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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Wed Jun 7 14:58:13 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:58:13 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) Message-ID: <003401c68a32$098029f0$921bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear All, I would like to float the idea of holding a Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) meeting to discuss establishing a Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG). The purpose of MENOG would be to provide a purely technical forum for technical experts to meet, discuss technical and operational issues, share knowledge and exchange experiences to improve the quality of Internet within the region and worldwide. Such an informal group might hold BOF sessions during other regional meetings of related Internet organizations. Sample objectives might include: 1. Discuss Optimal Routing policies within the region and towards the Internet 2. Implement traffic measurement tools to improve performance and quality of the Internet connectivity within the region. 3. Tutorials, technical presentations and courses to enhance technical skills 4. Interface with Academia in the region to assist with mutually beneficial research projects in the technology area. 5. Invite and interface with representatives from other NOGs to benefit from each other's experiences Many such groups are already working actively in other parts of the world, but there is a need to establish one in the Middle East. Perhaps we could have a BOF session for MENOG at the next Regional RIPE meeting. Below is a brief list of NOGs working in various parts of the world: NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) http://www.nanog.org AfNOG (African Network Operator Group) http://www.afnog.org/ SANOG (South Asian Operators Group) http://www.sanog.org/ APOPS (The Asia Pacific Operators Forum) http://www.apops.net/ For a complete worldwide list, please check: http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html Please feel free to share your thoughts. Regards, Malik Malik Awan Senior Network Manager Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar Office: +974 492-8952 Mobile: +974 553-7394 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8238 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hytham at mcit.gov.eg Thu Jun 22 14:24:50 2006 From: hytham at mcit.gov.eg (Hytham EL Nakhal) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:24:50 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) References: <003401c68a32$098029f0$921bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, I'm sorry for late in participating.... Malik, I vote for MENOG. It'll be great if we can make it, of course it'll need a lot of discussion regarding where will it based, rules, who will operate it's website, who could be a member & how,...etc. Regarding the traceroute subject, I've made trace route to the same websites from my DSL (attached). The first 3 hops omitted as it's local & private IP's. Saleem, please notice the last traceroute for www.etisalat.ae it takes more than 24 hops !!! I think we(Egypt) should have a peering in any point whether in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, EMIX or even in Sudan. According to FLAG cable or SMW3 cable we can choose the nearest country next to Egypt in the path & peer with it. Thanks, Haitham EL Nakhal Advisor, ICT technical Affairs NTRA, Egypt Mobile: +20 10 608 7150 Office: +20 2 534 1123 Fax: +20 2 534 0000 ________________________________ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Malik Awan Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 3:58 PM To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Cc: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'John Leong'; 'Cyndi Mills'; 'Paul Rendek' Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) Dear All, I would like to float the idea of holding a Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) meeting to discuss establishing a Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG). The purpose of MENOG would be to provide a purely technical forum for technical experts to meet, discuss technical and operational issues, share knowledge and exchange experiences to improve the quality of Internet within the region and worldwide. Such an informal group might hold BOF sessions during other regional meetings of related Internet organizations. Sample objectives might include: 1. Discuss Optimal Routing policies within the region and towards the Internet 2. Implement traffic measurement tools to improve performance and quality of the Internet connectivity within the region. 3. Tutorials, technical presentations and courses to enhance technical skills 4. Interface with Academia in the region to assist with mutually beneficial research projects in the technology area. 5. Invite and interface with representatives from other NOGs to benefit from each other's experiences Many such groups are already working actively in other parts of the world, but there is a need to establish one in the Middle East. Perhaps we could have a BOF session for MENOG at the next Regional RIPE meeting. Below is a brief list of NOGs working in various parts of the world: NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) http://www.nanog.org AfNOG (African Network Operator Group) http://www.afnog.org/ SANOG (South Asian Operators Group) http://www.sanog.org/ APOPS (The Asia Pacific Operators Forum) http://www.apops.net/ For a complete worldwide list, please check: http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html Please feel free to share your thoughts. Regards, Malik Malik Awan Senior Network Manager Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar Office: +974 492-8952 Mobile: +974 553-7394 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: traceroute www.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: traceroute www.doc URL: From leong at qatar.cmu.edu Thu Jun 22 15:22:57 2006 From: leong at qatar.cmu.edu (John Leong) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:22:57 -0700 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) References: <003401c68a32$098029f0$921bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <002e01c695fe$fa0a5210$b2282456@JLThinkPad> > Malik, I vote for MENOG. It'll be great if we can make it, > of course it'll need a lot of discussion regarding where will > it based, rules, who will operate it's website, who could be > a member & how,...etc. Here is a suggestion with respect MENOG based on experience with the original NANOG: "Keep it organizationally lightweight with the clear and simple goal of technical information exchanges for techies by techies". All policy issues, excepts for the very important understanding the technical implications of such policies, should be handled by different groups (e.g. ARISPA, others). The reason to keep non-technical policy issues explicitly out of its mandates is, while important, the commercial/national politics behind the scene can be overwhelming and beyond the scope of the people MENOG should be serving. While policy is outside the mandate of MENOG, it can serve as a technical advisory entity to approrpiate policy making groups. Best regards, John Leong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gaurab at lahai.com Thu Jun 29 17:22:34 2006 From: gaurab at lahai.com (Gaurab Raj Upadhaya) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:22:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) In-Reply-To: <002e01c695fe$fa0a5210$b2282456@JLThinkPad> References: <003401c68a32$098029f0$921bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> <002e01c695fe$fa0a5210$b2282456@JLThinkPad> Message-ID: <9C21C096-AA38-4E50-AF89-7EE7E048E697@lahai.com> Hello Folks, Just chiming in.. (wearing my SANOG Chair hat), the next SANOG is in karachi and is scheduled for 27 July - 4 August, 2006. website is www.sanog.org/sanog8/ the program was published last week. www.sanog.org/sanog8/ program.htm, though like other NOGs, we have paper submission open for anything that can come up late and is operationally relevant. RIPE NCC members are offered automatic discounts on registrations, and at one of the previous SANOGs, we had a West Asia BoF, to generate interest. We do have one or two regular participants from the ME companies. If there is interest to have a MENOG or something similiar at Bahrain, then I am happy to offer a few registrations for folks to come around and see how we do SANOG. thanks. On Jun 22, 2006, at 2:22 PM, John Leong wrote: > > Malik, I vote for MENOG. It'll be great if we can make it, > > of course it'll need a lot of discussion regarding where will > > it based, rules, who will operate it's website, who could be > > a member & how,...etc. > > > Here is a suggestion with respect MENOG based on experience with > the original NANOG: > > "Keep it organizationally lightweight with the clear and simple > goal of technical information exchanges for techies by techies". > > All policy issues, excepts for the very important understanding the > technical implications of such policies, should be handled by > different groups (e.g. ARISPA, others). The reason to keep non- > technical policy issues explicitly out of its mandates is, while > important, the commercial/national politics behind the scene can be > overwhelming and beyond the scope of the people MENOG should be > serving. > > While policy is outside the mandate of MENOG, it can serve as a > technical advisory entity to approrpiate policy making groups. > > Best regards, > John Leong > > > -- gaurab /////////////////////////////////////////////////////+9779851038080 gaurab at lahai dot com From mawan at cmu.edu Thu Jun 29 18:27:52 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:27:52 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) In-Reply-To: <9C21C096-AA38-4E50-AF89-7EE7E048E697@lahai.com> Message-ID: <000601c69b98$f98a9120$8219c2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Hello Gaurab, Thanks for your kind offer and invitation to SANOG. This would be an excellent opportunity for folks on both sides (SANOG and proposed MENOG) to meet, exchange ideas and learn from each other's experiences. In my opinion SANOG and MENOG "together" can function as an important "Internet-Bridge" between Europe (RIPE) and Asia-Pacific (APINIC), and can provide key technical cooperation to the Internet community in this region. Hope to hear warm interest from other friends in the region. Regards, Malik > -----Original Message----- > From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya [mailto:gaurab at lahai.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:23 PM > To: John Leong > Cc: Hytham EL Nakhal; mawan at cmu.edu; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; > Salman Al-Mannai; Cyndi Mills; Paul Rendek > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators > Group (MENOG) > > Hello Folks, > > Just chiming in.. (wearing my SANOG Chair hat), > > the next SANOG is in karachi and is scheduled for 27 July - 4 August, > 2006. website is www.sanog.org/sanog8/ > > the program was published last week. www.sanog.org/sanog8/ > program.htm, though like other NOGs, we have paper submission open > for anything that can come up late and is operationally relevant. > > RIPE NCC members are offered automatic discounts on registrations, > and at one of the previous SANOGs, we had a West Asia BoF, to > generate interest. We do have one or two regular participants from > the ME companies. > > If there is interest to have a MENOG or something similiar at > Bahrain, then I am happy to offer a few registrations for folks to > come around and see how we do SANOG. > > > thanks. > > > On Jun 22, 2006, at 2:22 PM, John Leong wrote: > > > > Malik, I vote for MENOG. It'll be great if we can make it, > > > of course it'll need a lot of discussion regarding where will > > > it based, rules, who will operate it's website, who could be > > > a member & how,...etc. > > > > > > Here is a suggestion with respect MENOG based on experience with > > the original NANOG: > > > > "Keep it organizationally lightweight with the clear and simple > > goal of technical information exchanges for techies by techies". > > > > All policy issues, excepts for the very important understanding the > > technical implications of such policies, should be handled by > > different groups (e.g. ARISPA, others). The reason to keep non- > > technical policy issues explicitly out of its mandates is, while > > important, the commercial/national politics behind the scene can be > > overwhelming and beyond the scope of the people MENOG should be > > serving. > > > > While policy is outside the mandate of MENOG, it can serve as a > > technical advisory entity to approrpiate policy making groups. > > > > Best regards, > > John Leong > > > > > > > > -- gaurab > > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////+9779851038080 > gaurab at lahai dot com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Thu Jun 29 18:37:25 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:37:25 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c69b9a$4e6fb390$8219c2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear Hytham. Welcome and thanks for sharing thoughts about MENOG. Yes, these are all valid questions, and I'm sure with collective team effort and having so many technical experts in this region, we will be able to establish this forum soon. Regards, Malik _____ From: Hytham EL Nakhal [mailto:hytham at mcit.gov.eg] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:25 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Cc: Salman Al-Mannai; John Leong; Cyndi Mills; Paul Rendek Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) Dear All, I'm sorry for late in participating.... Malik, I vote for MENOG. It'll be great if we can make it, of course it'll need a lot of discussion regarding where will it based, rules, who will operate it's website, who could be a member & how,...etc. Regarding the traceroute subject, I've made trace route to the same websites from my DSL (attached). The first 3 hops omitted as it's local & private IP's. Saleem, please notice the last traceroute for www.etisalat.ae it takes more than 24 hops !!! I think we(Egypt) should have a peering in any point whether in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, EMIX or even in Sudan. According to FLAG cable or SMW3 cable we can choose the nearest country next to Egypt in the path & peer with it. Thanks, Haitham EL Nakhal Advisor, ICT technical Affairs NTRA, Egypt Mobile: +20 10 608 7150 Office: +20 2 534 1123 Fax: +20 2 534 0000 _____ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Malik Awan Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 3:58 PM To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Cc: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'John Leong'; 'Cyndi Mills'; 'Paul Rendek' Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG) Dear All, I would like to float the idea of holding a Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) meeting to discuss establishing a Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG). The purpose of MENOG would be to provide a purely technical forum for technical experts to meet, discuss technical and operational issues, share knowledge and exchange experiences to improve the quality of Internet within the region and worldwide. Such an informal group might hold BOF sessions during other regional meetings of related Internet organizations. Sample objectives might include: 1. Discuss Optimal Routing policies within the region and towards the Internet 2. Implement traffic measurement tools to improve performance and quality of the Internet connectivity within the region. 3. Tutorials, technical presentations and courses to enhance technical skills 4. Interface with Academia in the region to assist with mutually beneficial research projects in the technology area. 5. Invite and interface with representatives from other NOGs to benefit from each other's experiences Many such groups are already working actively in other parts of the world, but there is a need to establish one in the Middle East. Perhaps we could have a BOF session for MENOG at the next Regional RIPE meeting. Below is a brief list of NOGs working in various parts of the world: NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) http://www.nanog.org AfNOG (African Network Operator Group) http://www.afnog.org/ SANOG (South Asian Operators Group) http://www.sanog.org/ APOPS (The Asia Pacific Operators Forum) http://www.apops.net/ For a complete worldwide list, please check: http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html Please feel free to share your thoughts. Regards, Malik Malik Awan Senior Network Manager Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar Office: +974 492-8952 Mobile: +974 553-7394 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 12894 bytes Desc: not available URL: