From saleem at nic.ae Fri May 12 11:26:22 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:26:22 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <033d01c65774$7b3372f0$6601a8c0@ROJINA> References: <150901c6358d$e80f1040$6401a8c0@ROJINA> <44303458.5020804@nic.ae> <033d01c65774$7b3372f0$6601a8c0@ROJINA> Message-ID: <446454BE.6090708@nic.ae> 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 Internet started for public use in most of the regional countries "ME&NA" in 1995 and 1996, during that period all the ISP's in the ME&NA were connected via satellite to the transit Internet backbone providers in the US and EU. During that time the round trip delays for an ICMP packet for example from UAE to Qatar used to take more than 1200 ms using following path: 1. Round trip time for the satellite connection from UAE to US was around 600 ms. 2. Round trip time for the satellite connection for Qatar to Us was around 600 ms. As the demand for internet access services increased in the region the need for faster connectivity and better performance increased as well. Several ISP's started to migrate its internet connectivity from satellite to Fiber cables, In 1998 ?Etisalat? established a fiber optic connectivity from the UAE (DXB) to US (NY), and introduced the first regional Transit IP provider (EMIX), several ISP's in the region used EMIX as it's transit IP provider and other used direct fiber connectivity to transit providers in the EU and US. Two type of relationships between the ISP's: 1. Transit Providers and customers: The internet service providers that provide it's customers with full BGP routing table for multi-homed customers or default route for single homed customers in order to transit via it's network to all the destinations in the interne. The customers pay?s agreed fees to it's transit provider. Example: - Transit provider ASN is 8961 - Customer ASN is 5384 Prefix?s originated are "194.170/16" and "195.229/16" - In this example with Transit relationship, the transit provider (AS8961) sends the full BGP routing table to it's customer (AS5384). - And the Customer (AS5384) send its originated routes (194.170/16 and 195.229/16) to its AS8961. 2. Peering relationship: Two ISP's agrees the exchange it's locally originated traffic between each other via a mutual agreement, and each ISP takes care of it's part of the connectivity (Usually no IP port charges are involved) Example: - ISP1 it's ASN is 5384 and the routes originated are "194.170/16 and 195.229/16" - ISP2 it's ASN is 8961 and the routes originated are "217.164/16", AS 8961 has a customer who's ASN is 8966 and the routes originated are "213.42/16" - ISP1 and ISP2 decided to establish a peering relationship in this case they establish the physical connectivity configure the BGP session between the directly connected routers. - ISP1 apply filters in it's BGP configuration so that only the routes originated - from AS5384 are sent to AS8966, and only receives the routes originated from AS8961 and AS8966. - ISP2 apply filters in it's BGP configuration so that only routes originated from AS8961 and AS8966 are sent to AS5384 and only receives the routes originated from AS5384. *_Advantages of peering_*: 1. Improves network performance for the traffic exchanged directly between the ISP's, i.e traffic between UAE and Qatar even after migrating to cable used to take more that 700ms since their was no direct connectivity between the two neighboring countries and traffic used to follow in the following path: UAE -- UK -- US(NY) -- US (LA) -- HK -- Qatar. After establishing the direct peering connectivity the performance reduced to less than 20ms. 2. Improve the availability by reducing the number of hubs (point of failure) between the two ISP's. 3. Reduce the overall network cost, since the traffic will be exchanged via a cheaper cost instead of traveling via the transit provider link which is very costly. 4. Improve network security avoiding sending the regional traffic via 3rd parties. Despite the above facts, during my involvement in EMIX development and operation, I have noticed following scenarios: 1. An ISP used to have 2 separate connectivity to EMIX, one for it's residential customers traffic and the other for it's business customers traffic. The traffic exchanged between residential customers network to a business customer used to travel via EMIX in the UAE. I have visited this ISP and found both the business units in the same campus, when I asked the technical people for the reason they tolled me it's just internal competition reasons between the Business units. 2. Another case where we had two competing ISP's from the same countries located in the same building were connected to EMIX and used to exchange it's local customers traffic via EMIX. *_The way Forwared:_* 1. The Telecom regulatory authorities in the countries should understand the advantages of the peering and try to enforce the ISP's in the country to establish peering connectivity either by establishing a county wide exchange point or direct connectivity between each two ISP's. 2. The ISP's in the region should communicate with each other and establish its direct connectivity in order to exchange it's locally originated traffic. Conclusion: Peering between the ISP's in the region is an important step for the improvement of the performance of internet infrastructure and the experience of the internet users in the region. *_Useful documents on this subject:_* http://www.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/Business_case.pdf http://www.equinix.com/pdf/whitepapers/PeeringWP.2.pdf From leong at qatar.cmu.edu Mon May 22 10:58:07 2006 From: leong at qatar.cmu.edu (John Leong) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 01:58:07 -0700 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering References: <150901c6358d$e80f1040$6401a8c0@ROJINA> <44303458.5020804@nic.ae> <033d01c65774$7b3372f0$6601a8c0@ROJINA> <446454BE.6090708@nic.ae> Message-ID: <007001c67d7d$d7f32ce0$901ac2cc@JLThinkPad> 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From contact at ripe.net Mon May 22 16:48:06 2006 From: contact at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:48:06 +0200 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] SANOG VIII Program and Registration Announcement Message-ID: <4471CF26.9000107@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, South Asian Network Operators Group (SANOG) VIII will be held 27 July - 4 August 2006, in Karachi, Pakistan. SANOG VIII is hosted by the Networkers' Society of Pakistan (NSP). Registration ------------------- SANOG VIII registration is now open. Members of the RIPE NCC qualify for a 10% discount if they register by 31 June, 2006. More information and the online registration form can be found at: http://www.sanog.org/sanog8/registration.htm Local Fellowships are still available. More information is available at: http://www.sanog.org/sanog8/fellowship.htm Registrations originating from Pakistan can be paid by Direct Debit. Program -------------- The SANOG VIII program is now online at: http://www.sanog.org/sanog8/program.htm Akinori Maemura, Chair of APNIC EC, is the keynote speaker. The extensive program includes workshops, tutorials, Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions and several key presentations. APNIC will also hold an Open Policy Meeting Showcase and, for the first time in Pakistan, there will a session on Internet Exchanges. We would like to acknowledge the involvement of APNIC in the development of the program content. Further information ------------------------------- We hope you are able to make it to this meeting. Anyone from the operational community interested in Internet operations in South Asia is welcome to attend. Participants from West Asia are welcome through our established relationship with the RIPE NCC. We look forward to seeing you there. Thanks, On behalf of the SANOG Organizers ----------------- Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC From aqrabawi at eim.ae Mon May 22 18:42:52 2006 From: aqrabawi at eim.ae (Moeen Aqrabawi) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:42:52 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <007001c67d7d$d7f32ce0$901ac2cc@JLThinkPad> Message-ID: <002c01c67dbe$c71a84e0$4101a8c0@moeen> I absolutely agree with Saleem and John, Last week I was in a workshop prepared by the ITU Arab regional office on IP Strategies and IDN Issues, a good initiative/proposal from our colleagues in Bahrain exchange was presented at the workshop on the same subject. Basically, the initiative is about having 3 interconnected NAPs one for the GCC countries in Dubai; second one for the Middle East Arab countries in Egypt and the last one for western Arab countries in Morocco. I believe this initiative worth to be discussed. You can download the presentation from http://www.ituarabic.org/IPS-IDN/Documents/Doc08- NAP FOR THE ARAB STATES.ppt Some more documents on ADN and other stuff are presented and also available for download on http://www.ituarabic.org/IPS-IDN/ Best Regards A. Moeen Aqrabawi Etisalat/UAE -----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: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:58 AM 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From leong at qatar.cmu.edu Mon May 22 19:52:42 2006 From: leong at qatar.cmu.edu (John Leong) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:52:42 -0700 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering References: <002c01c67dbe$c71a84e0$4101a8c0@moeen> Message-ID: <002d01c67dc8$8712b840$6800a8c0@JLThinkPad> BTW: NAP is a convenient place to for ISPs to physically converge. It offers the ISPs with circuits to the NAP the opportunity to peer. However, peering is really a business decision. Hence even though ISP A, B, C and D are coming to the NAP. I (ISP X) may only want to peer with ISP A and C, because I only want to do business with them. And then there is the issue of the size of the pipes your potential peer brings to the NAP (you could be bringing an OC192 while the other guy is only bring in an OC12) as well as the relative traffic ... My peer may be creating a lot of traffic on my link while the reverse is not true ... that is where settlement (as in money) comes in. For a middle east NAP, it will really add value if you can attract some big US and European ISP to bring a link in too. That way, the long haul traffic can flow in their pipe rather than your pipe. Again, settlement will be an isue. Finally, NAP is a logically place for a co-lo operation. Good place to out web server since you are one hop away from many ISPs (as long as you pay). It is also good place for an organization to have a multi-home router. So if I am multi-home to 3 ISPs, instead of buying 3 circuits from wherever I am to the POP of the 3 ISPs, I can just buy one circuit to the NAP and connect to all 3 ISOs there (...ok ...there is the issue of circuit redundancy). Best regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moeen Aqrabawi" To: "'John Leong'" ; "'Saleem Albalooshi'" ; Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I absolutely agree with Saleem and John, Last week I was in a workshop prepared by the ITU Arab regional office on IP Strategies and IDN Issues, a good initiative/proposal from our colleagues in Bahrain exchange was presented at the workshop on the same subject. Basically, the initiative is about having 3 interconnected NAPs one for the GCC countries in Dubai; second one for the Middle East Arab countries in Egypt and the last one for western Arab countries in Morocco. I believe this initiative worth to be discussed. You can download the presentation from http://www.ituarabic.org/IPS-IDN/Documents/Doc08- NAP FOR THE ARAB STATES.ppt Some more documents on ADN and other stuff are presented and also available for download on http://www.ituarabic.org/IPS-IDN/ Best Regards A. Moeen Aqrabawi Etisalat/UAE From leong at qatar.cmu.edu Mon May 22 22:22:40 2006 From: leong at qatar.cmu.edu (John Leong) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:22:40 -0700 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering References: <002c01c67dbe$c71a84e0$4101a8c0@moeen> <002d01c67dc8$8712b840$6800a8c0@JLThinkPad> Message-ID: <007001c67de2$5f4ed2c0$6800a8c0@JLThinkPad> One last note on NAP and peering in general ... While my first message suggest that it is strange from an engineering point of view to have traffic between neighbouring country to travel all the way through US, there is the business side of the equation. Using an extreme example to illustrate a point, if 99% of my traffic is to the US and only 1% to my neighbouring ISP, and if it costs me serious money to establish a direct link to my neighbouring ISP so I can do the peering (plus whatever money I have to pay in a bi-lateral settlement), then I may say too bad to that 1% and hey can take the long route since it is not worth it for me as a business. Of course the ideal case is if there is a NAP in the neighbourhood that is already hosting the big US and/or European ISP. In which case, I would peer with my US partner there instead of paying for a long haul link all the way to the US. If everyone think that way, that NAP will attract everyone there ... including my neighbour. In that case, the cost to solve my 1% traffic to my neighobour problem can be pretty cheap since I no longer need to pay for an addition link to that neighbour (only whatever bi-lateral settlement we can work out which could be none if we are truely 'peers'). Best regards, John Leong. From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Tue May 23 21:08:58 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:08:58 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <007001c67d7d$d7f32ce0$901ac2cc@JLThinkPad> Message-ID: <037f01c67e9c$84f981e0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- From saleem at nic.ae Tue May 23 23:58:19 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 00:58:19 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <037f01c67e9c$84f981e0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> References: <037f01c67e9c$84f981e0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Message-ID: <4473857B.1070006@nic.ae> 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 >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >----------------- > > > > > From aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae Wed May 24 09:53:12 2006 From: aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae (Moeen Aqrabawi) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:53:12 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4473857B.1070006@nic.ae> Message-ID: <013c01c67f07$1c786a30$c800000a@moeen> Thanks Saleem, Although I am not working directly on EMIX peering arrangements but it was of my pleasure to talk to our colleagues and get you the updates. It seams you are up to date with the Emirates Internet Exchange-EMIX www.emix.ae peering/connectivity status, However, In addition to the list of peering connectivity -in term of countries- which you already mentioned; EMIX is also peering with Thailand and negotiating doing the same with other countries in the region. However, in EMIX we are peering with many providers of different types from these countries. In term of peering with the International Internet exchanges as you are aware we are having local presence in NYIIX, LINX and also local presence in AMS-IX is being commissioned this month. In these Internet exchanges EMIX is also peering with a big list of tier1, tier2 providers and even with some normal customers having presence there. Finally, EMIX is also peering on IPv6 directly or indirectly through IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels with many v6 providers around the world. www.ipv6.ae www.uaeipv6.org Please, feel free to request any clarification or additional information; I will do my best to help. Best Regards A.Moeen Aqrabawi Etisalat/UAE -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:58 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 >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >----------------- > > > > > From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Wed May 24 10:10:06 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:10:06 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: 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 Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Wed May 24 11:30:34 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:30:34 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <040f01c67f14$b9abdf00$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Wed May 24 11:44:43 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:44:43 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Wed May 24 12:01:11 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:01:11 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Wed May 24 12:28:45 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:28:45 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c67f1c$d6cf00a0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GCC Peering.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: From saleem at nic.ae Wed May 24 19:35:17 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:35:17 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <040f01c67f14$b9abdf00$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> References: <040f01c67f14$b9abdf00$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Message-ID: <44749955.8020905@nic.ae> Dear Fahad, I think UAE and Bahrain has more than just 2MB connection, but could you send me the results of the "tracert", in some cases even the site a ".ae" and about UAE, but it's hosted outside UAE, which another issue need to be addressed. Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > 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. > From saleem at nic.ae Wed May 24 23:20:08 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:20:08 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000d01c67f1c$d6cf00a0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> References: <000d01c67f1c$d6cf00a0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <4474CE08.90601@nic.ae> Wa Alikum Al Salam, Dear Malik, Excellent initiative. Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.146] 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.201] 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net [195.219.15.214] 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net [195.219.15.218] 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.2] 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.201] 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net [195.219.96.70] 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net [195.219.96.122] 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.46] 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 15 * * * Request timed out. 16 ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] Malik Awan wrote: > 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. > From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Thu May 25 12:27:30 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:27:30 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <045201c67fe5$d7c8feb0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Dear Salman, Last I heard you were going to have a meeting with BIX. What were the results? As I have told you, I have full peering with BIX and I don't mind putting the capacity up to the boarder for such an initiative. Anyway, I'm out of the region for a while but should be back around the end of June. Let's meet then if your schedule is free? Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 12:45 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Thu May 25 13:38:56 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:38:56 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Fahad, You're right, it was suppose to be planned during my presence in Bahrain for the GCC Telecom Office meeting for the WTDC-06, however, I could not reach Mohammad Al-Thawadi for some reasons (he seemed to be out of town), did not replan it since WTDC-06 was very near. I thank you for your offer, and I'm waiting for our colleagues on this mailing list to respond. regards ________________________________ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 1:27 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 Dear Salman, Last I heard you were going to have a meeting with BIX. What were the results? As I have told you, I have full peering with BIX and I don't mind putting the capacity up to the boarder for such an initiative. Anyway, I'm out of the region for a while but should be back around the end of June. Let's meet then if your schedule is free? Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 12:45 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Thu May 25 14:00:01 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:00:01 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000d01c67f1c$d6cf00a0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <04a501c67ff3$2c8ce710$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Malik's tracert results further confirm what I have seen from Bahrain and is in contradiction with the presentation from the UAE. This brings an interesting point up. I know for a fact that Batelco, our lovely competitor in Bahrain, has two international gateway points for IP transit. One of them is peered with the exchange and the other one isn't. As such, we can always access their customers directly, but their customers have a 50% chance of going via the US to access us. Maybe the same issue exists on other networks? Fahad. P.S. No offense to anyone guys. My interest is purely in getting things working better. -----Original Message----- From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:29 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Thu May 25 14:00:01 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:00:01 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <04aa01c67ff3$366de4f0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Thu May 25 14:16:44 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:16:44 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: That's a good reason to have Malik's excel sheet completed. The statistics shown are almost 2 years old, thinks must have changed since then, and we need to know much? Malik's excel will help us find out. My analogy for Batelco's situation, is that: it is possible traffic are not optimized once it enters their local segment (no offence again, it is just a guess). regards ________________________________ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Malik's tracert results further confirm what I have seen from Bahrain and is in contradiction with the presentation from the UAE. This brings an interesting point up... I know for a fact that Batelco, our lovely competitor in Bahrain, has two international gateway points for IP transit. One of them is peered with the exchange and the other one isn't. As such, we can always access their customers directly, but their customers have a 50% chance of going via the US to access us. Maybe the same issue exists on other networks? Fahad. P.S. No offense to anyone guys. My interest is purely in getting things working better. -----Original Message----- From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:29 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 salmannai at ict.gov.qa Thu May 25 14:23:19 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:23:19 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards ________________________________ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 mawan at cmu.edu Thu May 25 14:43:25 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:43:25 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4474CE08.90601@nic.ae> Message-ID: <003b01c67ff8$d0a8d3e0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Thanks Saleem, I will add Sudan in the spreadsheet. So far we have these countries (in alphabetical order), it would be nice to add more regional countries to this list and get all traffic data (tracert, ingress/egress traffic to AS peers etc.). 1. BAHRAIN 2. KUWAIT 3. OMAN 4. QATAR 5. SAUDI ARABIA 6. SUDAN 7. UAE Note to all: You can tracert to any destination within these countries as long as the site is hosted within the respective country. Regards, Malik > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- > east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM > To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Wa Alikum Al Salam, > Dear Malik, > Excellent initiative. > > Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is > a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and > data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is > around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is > routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae > > Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 > 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 > 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] > 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 > 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 > 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa > > Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 > 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] > 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] > 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] > 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms > customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.197.198] > 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 > 14 * * * Request timed out. > 15 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa > > Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 > 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 > 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 > 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 > 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 > 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh > > Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.146] > 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.214] > 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.218] > 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.2] > 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 > 13 * * * Request timed out. > 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw > > Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.70] > 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.122] > 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.46] > 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 > 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] > 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 > 15 * * * Request timed out. > 16 ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om > > Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.233] > 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.241] > 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 > 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 > 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 > 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > > > > > > > Malik Awan wrote: > > > 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. > > > From mawan at cmu.edu Thu May 25 15:11:47 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:11:47 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004201c67ffc$c75943c0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> I would like to add couple of points on benefits of regional peering: 1. Regional peering would bring the bandwidth charges down (due to less transit costs), latency will improve and response time will be faster. All of this will encourage hosting providers to host locally, so more local content and more business for the regional ISPs. In addition, this would also encourage some multinational companies to have their middle-eastern content/services (e-business) hosted locally. 2. The other very important point is Voice-over-IP service. As most ISPs in the middle-east are now planning to launch the hosted VoIP solution (or have already launched), it is very critical to improve latency in the region. Otherwise, the high latency between regional countries (600-900 ms) will not make such services successful and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and revenues will not be achieved. Regards, Malik _____ 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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:23 PM To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards _____ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 mawan at cmu.edu Thu May 25 23:16:17 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 00:16:17 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4474CE08.90601@nic.ae> Message-ID: <000001c68040$77e70950$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> After comparing the tracert from other regions, my previous tracert(s) showed higher than normal latency (could be caused by asymmetric routing). However, I have re-run the tracert from my home ADSL and the data below is more accurate. I have also updated the spreadsheet and added Sudan in the list. In summary, it shows that Qatar has established some kind of peering with Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE, but not with Saudi Arabia, Oman (and Sudan) etc. Here are summary numbers: Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS ========= =========== ========================= BAHRAIN 30 0 KUWAIT 50 0 UAE 27 0 OMAN 585 14 SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 SUDAN 362 2 New traceroutes start here: ==============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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 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: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net [195.66.226.138] 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.65] 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge-0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.202] 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17] 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.63.33] 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.178] 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.209] 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== C:\>tracert www.canar.sd Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. Regards, Malik > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- > east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM > To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Wa Alikum Al Salam, > Dear Malik, > Excellent initiative. > > Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is > a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and > data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is > around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is > routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae > > Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 > 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 > 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] > 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 > 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 > 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa > > Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 > 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] > 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] > 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] > 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms > customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.197.198] > 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 > 14 * * * Request timed out. > 15 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa > > Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 > 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 > 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 > 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 > 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 > 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh > > Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.146] > 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.214] > 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.218] > 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.2] > 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 > 13 * * * Request timed out. > 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw > > Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.70] > 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.122] > 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.46] > 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 > 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] > 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 > 15 * * * Request timed out. > 16 ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om > > Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.233] > 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.241] > 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 > 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 > 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 > 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > > > > > > > Malik Awan wrote: > > > 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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GCC Peering-25052006.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 24576 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Fri May 26 00:03:08 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 01:03:08 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <004201c67ffc$c75943c0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <000701c68047$01e62090$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik _____ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:12 PM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I would like to add couple of points on benefits of regional peering: 1. Regional peering would bring the bandwidth charges down (due to less transit costs), latency will improve and response time will be faster. All of this will encourage hosting providers to host locally, so more local content and more business for the regional ISPs. In addition, this would also encourage some multinational companies to have their middle-eastern content/services (e-business) hosted locally. 2. The other very important point is Voice-over-IP service. As most ISPs in the middle-east are now planning to launch the hosted VoIP solution (or have already launched), it is very critical to improve latency in the region. Otherwise, the high latency between regional countries (600-900 ms) will not make such services successful and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and revenues will not be achieved. Regards, Malik _____ 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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:23 PM To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards _____ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae Fri May 26 00:19:36 2006 From: aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae (Moeen Aqrabawi) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 02:19:36 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000001c68040$77e70950$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <00d201c68049$4f0651e0$4101a8c0@moeen> Dear Malik, I hope the following info and trace-routes from my ADSL connection at home would help. I Cc Mr. "Khalid Ismael" SE/EMIX since his input would be very valuable on this. Thanks Moeen Etisalat/UAE ### EMIX-GCC Peering Source Remote End Bandwidth Type International Cable ========= ========== ========= ==== =================== EMIX-DXB Qatar Q-TEL 1 x DS3 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Kuwait - KUIX 4 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Bahrain - Batelco 5 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Saudi Arabia - STC 2 x E1 Peer Saudi Cable [Terrestial] EMIX-DXB Muscat - Omantel 5 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Sudan - Kanartel 1 x E1 Peer SMW3 ### C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] Trace complete. C:\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 86 ms 40 ms 38 ms 195.229.244.25 3 47 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.195 4 48 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 42 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 6 35 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 45 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.31.76 8 65 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.28.14 9 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 198.32.72.30 10 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.161 11 57 ms 41 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.65 12 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.205 13 51 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.137 14 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.141 15 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 212.77.222.226 16 61 ms 37 ms 37 ms 212.77.201.122 C:\>tracert kt.com.kw Tracing route to kt.com.kw [195.226.228.4] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 44 ms 36 ms 66 ms 195.229.244.25 3 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 4 51 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 63 ms 35 ms 27 ms 194.170.0.138 6 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.0.241 7 34 ms 23 ms 45 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae [195.229.31.99] 8 45 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.107 9 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.29.58 10 55 ms 35 ms 36 ms 62.150.200.2 11 60 ms 35 ms 40 ms ns1.qnethosting.com [195.226.228.4] Trace complete. C:\> C:\>tracert www.astra.com.sa Tracing route to www.astra.com.sa [212.12.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 36 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 39 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.25 3 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.121 5 44 ms 23 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.138 6 45 ms 28 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 44 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.0.221 8 261 ms 249 ms 250 ms pal5-etisalat-3-ae.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197 81] 9 246 ms 238 ms 235 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.21 10 302 ms 300 ms 299 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pa seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 11 301 ms 298 ms 308 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 12 308 ms 292 ms 291 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 13 298 ms 315 ms 303 ms mx2.nournet.com.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Trace complete. -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:16 AM To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering After comparing the tracert from other regions, my previous tracert(s) showed higher than normal latency (could be caused by asymmetric routing). However, I have re-run the tracert from my home ADSL and the data below is more accurate. I have also updated the spreadsheet and added Sudan in the list. In summary, it shows that Qatar has established some kind of peering with Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE, but not with Saudi Arabia, Oman (and Sudan) etc. Here are summary numbers: Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS ========= =========== ========================= BAHRAIN 30 0 KUWAIT 50 0 UAE 27 0 OMAN 585 14 SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 SUDAN 362 2 New traceroutes start here: ==============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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 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: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net [195.66.226.138] 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.65] 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge-0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.202] 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17] 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.63.33] 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.178] 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.209] 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== C:\>tracert www.canar.sd Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. Regards, Malik > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- > east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM > To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Wa Alikum Al Salam, > Dear Malik, > Excellent initiative. > > Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is > a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and > data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is > around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is > routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------- > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae > > Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 > 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 > 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] > 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 > 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 > 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa > > Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 > 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] > 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] > 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] > 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms > customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.197.198] > 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 > 14 * * * Request timed out. > 15 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa > > Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 > 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 > 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 > 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 > 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 > 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 > 12 * * * Request timed out. > 13 * ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh > > Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.146] > 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.214] > 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > [195.219.15.218] > 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.2] > 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 > 13 * * * Request timed out. > 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] > > Trace complete. > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw > > Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.201] > 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.70] > 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net > [195.219.96.122] > 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] > 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.46] > 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 > 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] > 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 > 15 * * * Request timed out. > 16 ^C > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om > > Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 > 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] > 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.233] > 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.241] > 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 > 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 > 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 > 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > > > > > > > Malik Awan wrote: > > > 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. > > > From leong at qatar.cmu.edu Fri May 26 18:27:06 2006 From: leong at qatar.cmu.edu (John Leong) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:27:06 -0700 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering References: <000701c68047$01e62090$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <007f01c680e1$3d8ff7c0$6401a8c0@JLThinkPad> Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. VoIP. My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Malik Awan To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salim at omantel.om Fri May 26 19:54:48 2006 From: salim at omantel.om (Salim Bader Al Mazrui) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 21:54:48 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: <4D63084985A4514CA5976C90D716D4C8EAA17C@EXCHANGE.corp.omantel.om> Dear colleagues; I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each other. In the business sector, many establishments communicate with their regional offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently seeing over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer. Regards Salim Bader Al-Mazrui Director Informatics Unit Networks & Technology Oman Telecommunications Company Tel: +968-631881 Fax: +968-695482 GSM: +968-99423279 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. VoIP. My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Malik Awan To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Fri May 26 22:45:39 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:45:39 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <007001c67de2$5f4ed2c0$6800a8c0@JLThinkPad> Message-ID: <056e01c68105$bbbbbb60$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> On an older thread, we would definitely support a 0 bilateral settlement approach though we see how it would be difficult overall as everyone I know is trying to establish themselves as the content host in the Middle East. Business case: Bilateral settlements. 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 23:23 To: John Leong; Moeen Aqrabawi; 'Saleem Albalooshi'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering One last note on NAP and peering in general ... While my first message suggest that it is strange from an engineering point of view to have traffic between neighbouring country to travel all the way through US, there is the business side of the equation. Using an extreme example to illustrate a point, if 99% of my traffic is to the US and only 1% to my neighbouring ISP, and if it costs me serious money to establish a direct link to my neighbouring ISP so I can do the peering (plus whatever money I have to pay in a bi-lateral settlement), then I may say too bad to that 1% and hey can take the long route since it is not worth it for me as a business. Of course the ideal case is if there is a NAP in the neighbourhood that is already hosting the big US and/or European ISP. In which case, I would peer with my US partner there instead of paying for a long haul link all the way to the US. If everyone think that way, that NAP will attract everyone there ... including my neighbour. In that case, the cost to solve my 1% traffic to my neighobour problem can be pretty cheap since I no longer need to pay for an addition link to that neighbour (only whatever bi-lateral settlement we can work out which could be none if we are truely 'peers'). Best regards, John Leong. From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Fri May 26 22:51:39 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:51:39 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000701c68047$01e62090$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <057a01c68106$31a9db40$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Not at all, but then most carriers in the region are still very afraid of voip for anything except inter-carrier traffic. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: 26 May 2006 01:03 To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik _____ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:12 PM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I would like to add couple of points on benefits of regional peering: 1. Regional peering would bring the bandwidth charges down (due to less transit costs), latency will improve and response time will be faster. All of this will encourage hosting providers to host locally, so more local content and more business for the regional ISPs. In addition, this would also encourage some multinational companies to have their middle-eastern content/services (e-business) hosted locally. 2. The other very important point is Voice-over-IP service. As most ISPs in the middle-east are now planning to launch the hosted VoIP solution (or have already launched), it is very critical to improve latency in the region. Otherwise, the high latency between regional countries (600-900 ms) will not make such services successful and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and revenues will not be achieved. Regards, Malik _____ 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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:23 PM To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards _____ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Fri May 26 23:12:42 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 00:12:42 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4D63084985A4514CA5976C90D716D4C8EAA17C@EXCHANGE.corp.omantel.om> Message-ID: <059d01c68109$2302e980$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Congratulations. Would Oman tell allow those companies to run VOIP in between themselves? I ask because in the light of the deregulation coming up in 7 months, things like this will eventually take place. Regards, Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim at omantel.om] Sent: 26 May 2006 20:55 To: John Leong; mawan at cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear colleagues; I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each other. In the business sector, many establishments communicate with their regional offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently seeing over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer. Regards Salim Bader Al-Mazrui Director Informatics Unit Networks & Technology Oman Telecommunications Company Tel: +968-631881 Fax: +968-695482 GSM: +968-99423279 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. VoIP. My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Malik Awan To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salim at omantel.om Sat May 27 06:09:46 2006 From: salim at omantel.om (Salim Al-Mazrui) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 08:09:46 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <059d01c68109$2302e980$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Message-ID: Hi Fahad; Presently VOIP is blocked in Oman as per TRA instructions. However, this will change once the market is open this year. Regards Salim On 5/27/06 1:12 AM, "Fahad AlShirawi" wrote: > Congratulations. Would Oman tell allow those companies to run VOIP in between > themselves? I ask because in the light of the deregulation coming up in 7 > months, things like this will eventually take place. > > > Regards, > > > Fahad. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim at omantel.om] > Sent: 26 May 2006 20:55 > To: John Leong; mawan at cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem > Albalooshi > Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa > Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Dear colleagues; > > I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform > you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th > May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each > other. In the business sector, many establishments communicate with their > regional offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently > seeing over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer. > > Regards > > Salim Bader Al-Mazrui > Director Informatics Unit > Networks & Technology > Oman Telecommunications Company > > Tel: +968-631881 > Fax: +968-695482 > GSM: +968-99423279 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong > Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM > To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' > Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. > VoIP. > > My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is > totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP > traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. > > However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a > lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. > > In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way > Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It > suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is > acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. > > Regards, > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Malik Awan > To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' > Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM > Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > > So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the > region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. > > > > Regards, > > > > Malik > Regards Salim Al-Mazrui Director of Informatics Unit Oman Telecommunications Company (Omantel) P.O.Box: 416, Ruwi, Muscat PC: 112 Off: +968-24631881 Mob: +968-99423279 Fax: +968-24695482 Emai: salim at omantel.om -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Sat May 27 11:04:53 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:04:53 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <00d201c68049$4f0651e0$4101a8c0@moeen> Message-ID: <000d01c6816c$9eabd430$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear Moeen, Thanks for this useful data. I have a question about your tracert to Bahrain, why is the latency high at hop#8 (assuming this is direct peering)? C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Trace complete. Regards, Malik > -----Original Message----- > From: Moeen Aqrabawi [mailto:aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae] > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:20 AM > To: mawan at cmu.edu; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > Cc: 'Khalid Ismael' > Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Dear Malik, > > I hope the following info and trace-routes from my ADSL connection at home > would help. > > I Cc Mr. "Khalid Ismael" SE/EMIX since his input would be very valuable on > this. > > Thanks > Moeen > Etisalat/UAE > > > ### > > EMIX-GCC Peering > > Source Remote End Bandwidth Type International Cable > ========= ========== ========= ==== =================== > EMIX-DXB Qatar Q-TEL 1 x DS3 Peer FOG > EMIX-DXB Kuwait - KUIX 4 x E1 Peer FOG > EMIX-DXB Bahrain - Batelco 5 x E1 Peer FOG > EMIX-DXB Saudi Arabia - STC 2 x E1 Peer Saudi Cable > [Terrestial] > EMIX-DXB Muscat - Omantel 5 x E1 Peer FOG > EMIX-DXB Sudan - Kanartel 1 x E1 Peer SMW3 > > ### > > C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om > > Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 > 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 > 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 > 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 > 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > > Trace complete. > > > C:\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa > > Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 86 ms 40 ms 38 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 47 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.195 > 4 48 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 42 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 35 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 45 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 65 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.28.14 > 9 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 198.32.72.30 > 10 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.161 > 11 57 ms 41 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.65 > 12 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.205 > 13 51 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.137 > 14 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.141 > 15 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 212.77.222.226 > 16 61 ms 37 ms 37 ms 212.77.201.122 > > > > > C:\>tracert kt.com.kw > > Tracing route to kt.com.kw [195.226.228.4] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 44 ms 36 ms 66 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 > 4 51 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 63 ms 35 ms 27 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 34 ms 23 ms 45 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae [195.229.31.99] > 8 45 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.107 > 9 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.29.58 > 10 55 ms 35 ms 36 ms 62.150.200.2 > 11 60 ms 35 ms 40 ms ns1.qnethosting.com [195.226.228.4] > > Trace complete. > > C:\> > > C:\>tracert www.astra.com.sa > > Tracing route to www.astra.com.sa [212.12.160.12] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 36 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 39 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 > 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 44 ms 23 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 45 ms 28 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 44 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.0.221 > 8 261 ms 249 ms 250 ms pal5-etisalat-3-ae.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.197 > 81] > 9 246 ms 238 ms 235 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.218.21 > > 10 302 ms 300 ms 299 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa- > pal6.pa > seabone.net [195.22.197.198] > 11 301 ms 298 ms 308 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] > 12 308 ms 292 ms 291 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] > 13 298 ms 315 ms 303 ms mx2.nournet.com.sa [212.12.160.12] > > Trace complete. > > > > C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh > > Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 > 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 > 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 > 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] > 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 > 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 > 10 * * * Request timed out. > 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] > > Trace complete. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- > east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:16 AM > To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > After comparing the tracert from other regions, my previous tracert(s) > showed higher than normal latency (could be caused by asymmetric routing). > However, I have re-run the tracert from my home ADSL and the data below is > more accurate. I have also updated the spreadsheet and added Sudan in the > list. > > In summary, it shows that Qatar has established some kind of peering with > Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE, but not with Saudi Arabia, Oman (and Sudan) etc. > Here are summary numbers: > > Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS > ========= =========== ========================= > BAHRAIN 30 0 > KUWAIT 50 0 > UAE 27 0 > OMAN 585 14 > SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 > SUDAN 362 2 > > > New traceroutes start here: > > ==============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: > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 > 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 > 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 > 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 > 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 > 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 > 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 > 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 > 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: > 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 > 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 > 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 > 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 > 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 > 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 > 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] > 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 > 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 > 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 > 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 > 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 > 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 > 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 > 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net > [12.122.12.121] > 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 > 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net > [192.205.32.118] > 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net > [204.70.192.54] > 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net > [204.70.192.6] > 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net > [204.70.192.38] > 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net > [204.70.192.122] > 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net > [204.70.193.202] > 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net > [204.70.193.121] > 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net > [206.24.169.10] > 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net > [195.66.226.138] > 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.2.65] > 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge- > 0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > [129.250.10.202] > 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.233] > 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.50] > 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.241] > 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 > 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 > 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 > 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 > 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 > 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 > 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] > 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net > [219.58.126.17] > 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net > [216.6.63.33] > 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net > [64.86.84.178] > 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.218.209] > 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms > customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net > [195.22.197.198] > 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] > 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] > 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] > Trace complete. > > > ==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== > > C:\>tracert www.canar.sd > Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 > 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 > 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 > 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 > 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 > 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 > 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 > Trace complete. > > > ==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== > > C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae > Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 > 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 > 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 > 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 > 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 > 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 > 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 > 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 > 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 > 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 > 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] > 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 > 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 > 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 > Trace complete. > > > Regards, > > Malik > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional- > middle- > > east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi > > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM > > To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > > > Wa Alikum Al Salam, > > Dear Malik, > > Excellent initiative. > > > > Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is > > a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and > > data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is > > around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is > > routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > > ------------- > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae > > > > Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > > 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 > > 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 > > 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] > > 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 > > 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 > > 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 > > > > Trace complete. > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa > > > > Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > > 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > > 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.50] > > 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 > > 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] > > 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] > > 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] > > 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms > > customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net > > [195.22.197.198] > > 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] > > 12 * * * Request timed out. > > 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 > > 14 * * * Request timed out. > > 15 * ^C > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa > > > > Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 > > 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 > > 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 > > 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 > > 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 > > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 > > 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 > > 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 > > 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 > > 12 * * * Request timed out. > > 13 * ^C > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh > > > > Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 > > 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > > 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > > [62.216.129.146] > > 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > > [129.250.10.201] > > 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > > 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > > [195.219.15.214] > > 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net > > [195.219.15.218] > > 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net > [195.219.13.18] > > 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net > [66.198.126.2] > > 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 > > 13 * * * Request timed out. > > 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] > > > > Trace complete. > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw > > > > Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 > > 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > > 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.50] > > 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net > > [129.250.10.201] > > 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] > > 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net > > [195.219.96.70] > > 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net > > [195.219.96.122] > > 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net > [195.219.13.18] > > 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net > [66.198.126.46] > > 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 > > 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] > > 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 > > 15 * * * Request timed out. > > 16 ^C > > > > C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om > > > > Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 > > 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 > > 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 > > 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 > > 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com > [62.216.129.50] > > 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com > > [62.216.128.233] > > 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com > [62.216.128.50] > > 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com > > [62.216.128.241] > > 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 > > 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 > > 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 > > 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malik Awan wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > From mawan at cmu.edu Sat May 27 11:18:54 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:18:54 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4D63084985A4514CA5976C90D716D4C8EAA17C@EXCHANGE.corp.omantel.om> Message-ID: <000e01c6816e$94055180$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear Salim, Thanks for your update, and a very good news. Your customers must be enjoying the benefits of peering with UAE (tracert sent by Moeen Aqrabawi): > C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om > > Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 > 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 > 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 > 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 > 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > > Trace complete. Hope Oman will soon have similar direct peering with Qatar and other regional countries. Below is a tracert from Qatar to Oman (the latency is reaching upto 700ms.) C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 20 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.202 6 19 ms 16 ms 16 ms 82.148.97.66 7 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.119.94.77 8 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.123.33.62 9 254 ms 252 ms 252 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 251 ms 249 ms 249 ms 12.123.20.201 11 240 ms 242 ms 239 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 240 ms 242 ms 243 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 247 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 244 ms 243 ms 245 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 243 ms 240 ms 241 ms bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 242 ms 242 ms 241 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 528 ms 525 ms 527 ms omantel.pos3-2.ar03.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.13.134] 20 536 ms 528 ms 534 ms 82.178.32.21 21 614 ms 606 ms 633 ms 62.231.254.130 22 700 ms 685 ms 663 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] Trace complete. Regards, Malik _____ From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim at omantel.om] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:55 PM To: John Leong; mawan at cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear colleagues; I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each other. In the business sector, many establishments communicate with their regional offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently seeing over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer. Regards Salim Bader Al-Mazrui Director Informatics Unit Networks & Technology Oman Telecommunications Company Tel: +968-631881 Fax: +968-695482 GSM: +968-99423279 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. VoIP. My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Malik Awan To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Sat May 27 12:00:40 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:00:40 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000e01c6816e$94055180$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <05fd01c68174$6c7d7ab0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Gentlemen, why don't we allow transit peering and work on a settlement basis for the time being at least? If EMIX is connected with Oman and Qatar. Follow the thought. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: 27 May 2006 12:19 To: 'Salim Bader Al Mazrui'; 'John Leong'; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear Salim, Thanks for your update, and a very good news. Your customers must be enjoying the benefits of peering with UAE (tracert sent by Moeen Aqrabawi): > C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om > > Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > over a maximum of 30 hops: > > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 > 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 > 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 > 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 > 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 > 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 > 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 > 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] > > Trace complete. Hope Oman will soon have similar direct peering with Qatar and other regional countries. Below is a tracert from Qatar to Oman (the latency is reaching upto 700ms.) C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 20 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.202 6 19 ms 16 ms 16 ms 82.148.97.66 7 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.119.94.77 8 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.123.33.62 9 254 ms 252 ms 252 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 251 ms 249 ms 249 ms 12.123.20.201 11 240 ms 242 ms 239 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 240 ms 242 ms 243 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 247 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 244 ms 243 ms 245 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 243 ms 240 ms 241 ms bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 242 ms 242 ms 241 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 528 ms 525 ms 527 ms omantel.pos3-2.ar03.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.13.134] 20 536 ms 528 ms 534 ms 82.178.32.21 21 614 ms 606 ms 633 ms 62.231.254.130 22 700 ms 685 ms 663 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] Trace complete. Regards, Malik _____ From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim at omantel.om] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:55 PM To: John Leong; mawan at cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear colleagues; I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to inform you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on Wednesday 24th May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our local networks to each other. In the business sector, many establishments communicate with their regional offices in the middle east over the Internet. We are presently seeing over 4 Mbps traffic after establishing the peer. Regards Salim Bader Al-Mazrui Director Informatics Unit Networks & Technology Oman Telecommunications Company Tel: +968-631881 Fax: +968-695482 GSM: +968-99423279 -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from Malik. VoIP. My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, we may not care. However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything above 400 ms is not acceptable. Regards, John ----- Original Message ----- From: Malik Awan To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mawan at cmu.edu Sat May 27 12:44:02 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:44:02 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4478216C.5090300@emirates.net.ae> Message-ID: <001c01c6817a$7896cda0$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Thanks Khalid, this looks better. Malik _____ From: Khalid Ismael [mailto:kismael at emirates.net.ae] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:53 PM To: mawan at cmu.edu Cc: 'Moeen Aqrabawi'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear Malik, I have just performed a trace route and it is working fine. Below is a trace route to the same site: C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 213.42.1.195 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 213.42.1.113 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 195.229.0.241 4 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 195.229.31.76 5 20 ms 12 ms 12 ms 195.229.28.46 6 18 ms 14 ms 13 ms 217.17.233.212 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Below trace route problem could be because bahrain route was not announced to UAE at that time. Best Regards, Khalid Ismael Malik Awan wrote: Dear Moeen, Thanks for this useful data. I have a question about your tracert to Bahrain, why is the latency high at hop#8 (assuming this is direct peering)? C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Trace complete. Regards, Malik -----Original Message----- From: Moeen Aqrabawi [mailto:aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:20 AM To: mawan at cmu.edu; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Cc: 'Khalid Ismael' Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear Malik, I hope the following info and trace-routes from my ADSL connection at home would help. I Cc Mr. "Khalid Ismael" SE/EMIX since his input would be very valuable on this. Thanks Moeen Etisalat/UAE ### EMIX-GCC Peering Source Remote End Bandwidth Type International Cable ========= ========== ========= ==== =================== EMIX-DXB Qatar Q-TEL 1 x DS3 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Kuwait - KUIX 4 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Bahrain - Batelco 5 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Saudi Arabia - STC 2 x E1 Peer Saudi Cable [Terrestial] EMIX-DXB Muscat - Omantel 5 x E1 Peer FOG EMIX-DXB Sudan - Kanartel 1 x E1 Peer SMW3 ### C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] Trace complete. C:\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 86 ms 40 ms 38 ms 195.229.244.25 3 47 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.195 4 48 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 42 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 6 35 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 45 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.31.76 8 65 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.28.14 9 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 198.32.72.30 10 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.161 11 57 ms 41 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.65 12 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.205 13 51 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.137 14 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.141 15 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 212.77.222.226 16 61 ms 37 ms 37 ms 212.77.201.122 C:\>tracert kt.com.kw Tracing route to kt.com.kw [195.226.228.4] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 44 ms 36 ms 66 ms 195.229.244.25 3 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 4 51 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 5 63 ms 35 ms 27 ms 194.170.0.138 6 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.0.241 7 34 ms 23 ms 45 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae [195.229.31.99] 8 45 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.107 9 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.29.58 10 55 ms 35 ms 36 ms 62.150.200.2 11 60 ms 35 ms 40 ms ns1.qnethosting.com [195.226.228.4] Trace complete. C:\> C:\>tracert www.astra.com.sa Tracing route to www.astra.com.sa [212.12.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 36 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 39 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.25 3 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.121 5 44 ms 23 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.138 6 45 ms 28 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 7 44 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.0.221 8 261 ms 249 ms 250 ms pal5-etisalat-3-ae.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197 81] 9 246 ms 238 ms 235 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.21 10 302 ms 300 ms 299 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa- pal6.pa seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 11 301 ms 298 ms 308 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 12 308 ms 292 ms 291 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 13 298 ms 315 ms 303 ms mx2.nournet.com.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Trace complete. -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:16 AM To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering After comparing the tracert from other regions, my previous tracert(s) showed higher than normal latency (could be caused by asymmetric routing). However, I have re-run the tracert from my home ADSL and the data below is more accurate. I have also updated the spreadsheet and added Sudan in the list. In summary, it shows that Qatar has established some kind of peering with Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE, but not with Saudi Arabia, Oman (and Sudan) etc. Here are summary numbers: Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS ========= =========== ========================= BAHRAIN 30 0 KUWAIT 50 0 UAE 27 0 OMAN 585 14 SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 SUDAN 362 2 New traceroutes start here: ==============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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 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: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net [195.66.226.138] 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.65] 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge- 0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.202] 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17] 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.63.33] 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.178] 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.209] 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== C:\>tracert www.canar.sd Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. Regards, Malik -----Original Message----- From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional- middle- east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Wa Alikum Al Salam, Dear Malik, Excellent initiative. Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------- C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] 8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] 9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] 10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.146] 6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.201] 7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] 8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net [195.219.15.214] 9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net [195.219.15.218] 10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] 11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.2] 12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] Trace complete. C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.201] 7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] 8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net [195.219.96.70] 9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net [195.219.96.122] 10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [195.219.13.18] 11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net [66.198.126.46] 12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] 14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 15 * * * Request timed out. 16 ^C C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com [62.216.129.50] 6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] Malik Awan wrote: 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. -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MAJO at qtel.com.qa Mon May 29 07:07:23 2006 From: MAJO at qtel.com.qa (Abdulmajeed Akbar) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:07:23 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: <439BC5D8E4C53746B3ABA68E264913C176227C@BAREED.qtel.ad.pri> Hi Mike FYI If you sending your ping or trace from QF (education city ) they you will get two figures. QF is connected with two links to USA, one to NYK and the other to Los Anglos. NYK has a latency of about 200 ms while the LA has a latency of 400 ms. Thanks & Regards A.Majeed Akbar ________________________________ From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:03 AM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; Abdulmajeed Akbar Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik ________________________________ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:12 PM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I would like to add couple of points on benefits of regional peering: 1. Regional peering would bring the bandwidth charges down (due to less transit costs), latency will improve and response time will be faster. All of this will encourage hosting providers to host locally, so more local content and more business for the regional ISPs. In addition, this would also encourage some multinational companies to have their middle-eastern content/services (e-business) hosted locally. 2. The other very important point is Voice-over-IP service. As most ISPs in the middle-east are now planning to launch the hosted VoIP solution (or have already launched), it is very critical to improve latency in the region. Otherwise, the high latency between regional countries (600-900 ms) will not make such services successful and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and revenues will not be achieved. Regards, Malik ________________________________ 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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:23 PM To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards ________________________________ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 mawan at cmu.edu Mon May 29 07:36:28 2006 From: mawan at cmu.edu (Malik Awan) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:36:28 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <439BC5D8E4C53746B3ABA68E264913C176227C@BAREED.qtel.ad.pri> Message-ID: <000301c682e1$d6a1fab0$bd1bc2cc@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Dear AbdulMajeed, Yes, I understand this dual homed connectivity for QF (Education City) to NY and LA and the latency issues. That's why, in order to avoid the specific customer (QF) scenario, I resent all tracert(s) from my home ADSL which shows a true Internet Connectivity picture from Qtel-ISP's perspective. I am pasting those tracert and latency numbers below again for your review (sorry to others for duplicate info.) Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS ========= =========== ========================= BAHRAIN 30 0 KUWAIT 50 0 UAE 27 0 OMAN 585 14 SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 SUDAN 362 2 ==============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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 Trace complete. C:\>tracert www.batelco.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 18 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 14 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.181 6 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.254 7 25 ms 26 ms 28 ms 212.77.216.254 8 26 ms 24 ms 24 ms 217.17.233.196 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 25 ms 32 ms 27 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] 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: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121] 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118] 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54] 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6] 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38] 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122] 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202] 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121] 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10] 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net [195.66.226.138] 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.65] 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge-0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.10.202] 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com [62.216.128.233] 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com [62.216.128.50] 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com [62.216.128.241] 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net [219.58.126.17] 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net [216.6.63.33] 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net [64.86.84.178] 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.209] 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net [195.22.197.198] 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== C:\>tracert www.canar.sd Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 Trace complete. ==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 Trace complete. Regards, Malik _____ From: Abdulmajeed Akbar [mailto:MAJO at qtel.com.qa] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:07 AM To: mawan at cmu.edu; 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 Hi Mike FYI If you sending your ping or trace from QF (education city ) they you will get two figures. QF is connected with two links to USA, one to NYK and the other to Los Anglos. NYK has a latency of about 200 ms while the LA has a latency of 400 ms. Thanks & Regards A.Majeed Akbar _____ From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan at cmu.edu] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:03 AM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; Abdulmajeed Akbar Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. Regards, Malik _____ From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:12 PM To: 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering I would like to add couple of points on benefits of regional peering: 1. Regional peering would bring the bandwidth charges down (due to less transit costs), latency will improve and response time will be faster. All of this will encourage hosting providers to host locally, so more local content and more business for the regional ISPs. In addition, this would also encourage some multinational companies to have their middle-eastern content/services (e-business) hosted locally. 2. The other very important point is Voice-over-IP service. As most ISPs in the middle-east are now planning to launch the hosted VoIP solution (or have already launched), it is very critical to improve latency in the region. Otherwise, the high latency between regional countries (600-900 ms) will not make such services successful and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION and revenues will not be achieved. Regards, Malik _____ 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: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:23 PM To: Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering That is one giant step forward, and with Al-Jazeera in Qatar I don't think the situation here as bad either, except that the availability of hosting services and the pricing. I've included Abdulmajeed in the CC to solicit his view. regards _____ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 3:00 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 If I ever find that chicken, I'm not letting it out of my site. As to the content issue, you are correct. However, we have started seeing change in that regards in Bahrain. We are offering hosting companies packages very closely resembling the pricing they get from the US and while the margins are very small, it is worth it in the long term. Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai at ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 13:01 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 abdulla.hashim at eim.ae Fri May 26 11:51:24 2006 From: abdulla.hashim at eim.ae (Abdulla A. Hashim) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:51:24 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4476CF9C.7020400@eim.ae> 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 abdulla.hashim at eim.ae Fri May 26 12:03:09 2006 From: abdulla.hashim at eim.ae (Abdulla A. Hashim) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:03:09 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4476D25D.1000905@eim.ae> I guess the discussion is getting interested and touching a number of strategies that as an ISPs in the GCC need to discuss: Peering; promoting and encouraging local hosting ; yes these topics deserve face to face meeting. Can we meet or have video-conf meeting ARISPA also shall join this meeting I ask Sulman or Saleem to coordinate this meeting Salman Al-Mannai wrote: > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kismael at emirates.net.ae Sat May 27 11:52:44 2006 From: kismael at emirates.net.ae (Khalid Ismael) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:52:44 +0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <000d01c6816c$9eabd430$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> References: <000d01c6816c$9eabd430$0900a8c0@qatar.win.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <4478216C.5090300@emirates.net.ae> Dear Malik, I have just performed a trace route and it is working fine. Below is a trace route to the same site: C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 213.42.1.195 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 213.42.1.113 3 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 195.229.0.241 4 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 195.229.31.76 5 20 ms 12 ms 12 ms 195.229.28.46 6 18 ms 14 ms 13 ms 217.17.233.212 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] Below trace route problem could be because bahrain route was not announced to UAE at that time. Best Regards, Khalid Ismael Malik Awan wrote: >Dear Moeen, >Thanks for this useful data. I have a question about your tracert to >Bahrain, why is the latency high at hop#8 (assuming this is direct peering)? > >C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh > >Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] over a maximum of 30 >hops: > > 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 > 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 > 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 > 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 > 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 > 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] > 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 > 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 > 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 > 10 * * * Request timed out. > 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] > >Trace complete. > >Regards, > >Malik > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Moeen Aqrabawi [mailto:aqrabawi at emirates.net.ae] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:20 AM >>To: mawan at cmu.edu; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >>Cc: 'Khalid Ismael' >>Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering >> >>Dear Malik, >> >>I hope the following info and trace-routes from my ADSL connection at home >>would help. >> >>I Cc Mr. "Khalid Ismael" SE/EMIX since his input would be very valuable on >>this. >> >>Thanks >>Moeen >>Etisalat/UAE >> >> >>### >> >>EMIX-GCC Peering >> >>Source Remote End Bandwidth Type >> >> >International Cable > > >>========= ========== ========= ==== >> >> >=================== > > >>EMIX-DXB Qatar Q-TEL 1 x DS3 Peer FOG >>EMIX-DXB Kuwait - KUIX 4 x E1 Peer FOG >>EMIX-DXB Bahrain - Batelco 5 x E1 Peer FOG >>EMIX-DXB Saudi Arabia - STC 2 x E1 Peer Saudi Cable >>[Terrestial] >>EMIX-DXB Muscat - Omantel 5 x E1 Peer FOG >>EMIX-DXB Sudan - Kanartel 1 x E1 Peer SMW3 >> >>### >> >>C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om >> >>Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> >> 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 >> 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25 >> 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195 >> 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 >> 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 >> 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 >> 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76 >> 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 >> 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22 >> 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142 >> 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29] >> >>Trace complete. >> >> >>C:\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa >> >>Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> >> 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 >> 2 86 ms 40 ms 38 ms 195.229.244.25 >> 3 47 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.195 >> 4 48 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 >> 5 42 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138 >> 6 35 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 >> 7 45 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.31.76 >> 8 65 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.28.14 >> 9 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 198.32.72.30 >> 10 46 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.161 >> 11 57 ms 41 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.65 >> 12 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 82.148.96.205 >> 13 51 ms 34 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.137 >> 14 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 82.148.96.141 >> 15 54 ms 35 ms 35 ms 212.77.222.226 >> 16 61 ms 37 ms 37 ms 212.77.201.122 >> >> >> >> >>C:\>tracert kt.com.kw >> >>Tracing route to kt.com.kw [195.226.228.4] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> >> 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 >> 2 44 ms 36 ms 66 ms 195.229.244.25 >> 3 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 >> 4 51 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121 >> 5 63 ms 35 ms 27 ms 194.170.0.138 >> 6 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.0.241 >> 7 34 ms 23 ms 45 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge6303.emix.ae [195.229.31.99] >> 8 45 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.107 >> 9 55 ms 34 ms 34 ms 195.229.29.58 >> 10 55 ms 35 ms 36 ms 62.150.200.2 >> 11 60 ms 35 ms 40 ms ns1.qnethosting.com [195.226.228.4] >> >>Trace complete. >> >>C:\> >> >>C:\>tracert www.astra.com.sa >> >>Tracing route to www.astra.com.sa [212.12.160.12] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> >> 1 36 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 >> 2 39 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.25 >> 3 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.131 >> 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.121 >> 5 44 ms 23 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.138 >> 6 45 ms 28 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241 >> 7 44 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.0.221 >> 8 261 ms 249 ms 250 ms pal5-etisalat-3-ae.pal.seabone.net >>[195.22.197 >>81] >> 9 246 ms 238 ms 235 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net >>[195.22.218.21 >> >> 10 302 ms 300 ms 299 ms customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa- >>pal6.pa >>seabone.net [195.22.197.198] >> 11 301 ms 298 ms 308 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] >> 12 308 ms 292 ms 291 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] >> 13 298 ms 315 ms 303 ms mx2.nournet.com.sa [212.12.160.12] >> >>Trace complete. >> >> >> >>C:\>tracert www.batelco.com.bh >> >>Tracing route to www.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> >> 1 27 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1 >> 2 38 ms 403 ms 63 ms 195.229.244.25 >> 3 40 ms 22 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.130 >> 4 42 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.244.114 >> 5 43 ms 22 ms 23 ms 194.170.0.142 >> 6 42 ms 23 ms 22 ms nyc-emix-ca.at1101.emix.ae [195.229.0.253] >> 7 49 ms 25 ms 26 ms 195.229.31.76 >> 8 234 ms 265 ms 233 ms 195.229.28.42 >> 9 239 ms 239 ms 242 ms 217.17.233.220 >> 10 * * * Request timed out. >> 11 256 ms 249 ms 252 ms arabic.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.74] >> >>Trace complete. >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional-middle- >>east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Malik Awan >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:16 AM >>To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >>Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering >> >>After comparing the tracert from other regions, my previous tracert(s) >>showed higher than normal latency (could be caused by asymmetric routing). >>However, I have re-run the tracert from my home ADSL and the data below is >>more accurate. I have also updated the spreadsheet and added Sudan in the >>list. >> >>In summary, it shows that Qatar has established some kind of peering with >>Bahrain, Kuwait and UAE, but not with Saudi Arabia, Oman (and Sudan) etc. >>Here are summary numbers: >> >>Country Latency (ms) Router Hops in Transit AS >>========= =========== ========================= >>BAHRAIN 30 0 >>KUWAIT 50 0 >>UAE 27 0 >>OMAN 585 14 >>SAUDI ARABIA 465 6 >>SUDAN 362 2 >> >> >>New traceroutes start here: >> >>==============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: >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.181 >> 6 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.254 >> 7 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms 212.77.216.254 >> 8 28 ms 24 ms 36 ms 217.17.233.69 >> 9 30 ms 26 ms 28 ms 217.17.233.69 >> 10 37 ms 36 ms 39 ms 193.188.104.46 >> 11 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 193.188.101.2 >> 12 34 ms 57 ms 33 ms 193.188.101.18 >>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: >> 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 >> 6 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.206 >> 7 21 ms 16 ms 18 ms 82.148.96.66 >> 8 23 ms 23 ms 20 ms 82.148.96.162 >> 9 22 ms 25 ms 23 ms 198.32.72.33 >> 10 29 ms 28 ms 60 ms 195.229.28.13 >> 11 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-ra.ge1302.emix.ae [195.229.31.67] >> 12 27 ms 29 ms 53 ms 195.229.31.107 >> 13 54 ms 55 ms 55 ms 195.229.29.58 >> 14 51 ms 54 ms 54 ms 62.150.200.2 >> 15 52 ms 49 ms 53 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: >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 20 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.202 >> 6 * 18 ms 17 ms 82.148.97.66 >> 7 234 ms * 223 ms 12.119.94.77 >> 8 236 ms 233 ms 229 ms 12.123.33.62 >> 9 229 ms 233 ms 236 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net >>[12.122.12.121] >> 10 239 ms 233 ms 234 ms 12.123.20.201 >> 11 228 ms 230 ms 234 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net >>[192.205.32.118] >> 12 239 ms 237 ms 270 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net >>[204.70.192.54] >> 13 240 ms 256 ms 238 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net >>[204.70.192.6] >> 14 238 ms 239 ms 236 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net >>[204.70.192.38] >> 15 308 ms 310 ms 312 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net >>[204.70.192.122] >> 16 311 ms 314 ms * bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net >>[204.70.193.202] >> 17 325 ms 313 ms * bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net >>[204.70.193.121] >> 18 305 ms 302 ms 300 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net >>[206.24.169.10] >> 19 232 ms 235 ms 229 ms ge-1.linx.londen03.uk.bb.verio.net >>[195.66.226.138] >> 20 * 230 ms 231 ms xe-0-2-0.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net >>[129.250.2.65] >> 21 227 ms 230 ms 230 ms ge- >>0.flagtelecom.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net >>[129.250.10.202] >> 22 302 ms 304 ms 304 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com >>[62.216.128.233] >> 23 312 ms 303 ms 302 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com >>[62.216.128.50] >> 24 369 ms 370 ms 373 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com >>[62.216.128.241] >> 25 586 ms 582 ms * 80.77.0.42 >> 26 582 ms 585 ms 576 ms 82.178.32.21 >> 27 585 ms 584 ms 584 ms 62.231.254.130 >> 28 585 ms 585 ms 584 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: >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.202 >> 6 17 ms 16 ms 19 ms 82.148.97.66 >> 7 20 ms 17 ms 18 ms 212.77.200.169 >> 8 248 ms 249 ms 248 ms r42-doha.netw.qatar.net.qa [212.77.201.42] >> 9 236 ms 241 ms 238 ms softbank219058126017.bbtec.net >>[219.58.126.17] >> 10 275 ms 323 ms 259 ms if-6-0.mcore4.NJY-Newark.teleglobe.net >>[216.6.63.33] >> 11 403 ms 408 ms 409 ms ix-3-0.core1.NJY-Newark.Teleglobe.net >>[64.86.84.178] >> 12 528 ms 531 ms 536 ms pal6-pal7-racc1.pal.seabone.net >>[195.22.218.209] >> 13 435 ms 442 ms 433 ms >>customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net >>[195.22.197.198] >> 14 599 ms 453 ms 481 ms vlan1.ruh-acc4.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.23] >> 15 447 ms 449 ms 445 ms nour.ruh-cust.isu.net.sa [212.26.19.54] >> 16 445 ms 451 ms 448 ms mx2.nour.net.sa [212.12.160.12] >>Trace complete. >> >> >>==============QATAR-TO-SUDAN=========== >> >>C:\>tracert www.canar.sd >>Tracing route to canar.sd [196.29.160.164] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 >> 6 18 ms 16 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.206 >> 7 18 ms 15 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.66 >> 8 162 ms 164 ms 163 ms 62.216.146.201 >> 9 365 ms 366 ms 366 ms 80.77.1.174 >> 10 367 ms 366 ms 364 ms 196.29.160.22 >> 11 364 ms 362 ms 365 ms 196.29.160.164 >>Trace complete. >> >> >>==============QATAR-TO-UAE================== >> >>C:\>tracert www.etisalat.ae >>Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] >>over a maximum of 30 hops: >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1 >> 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166 >> 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25 >> 4 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms 82.148.96.186 >> 5 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.138 >> 6 18 ms 19 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.206 >> 7 18 ms 17 ms 21 ms 82.148.96.66 >> 8 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.162 >> 9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms 198.32.72.33 >> 10 35 ms 33 ms 72 ms 195.229.28.13 >> 11 32 ms 29 ms 28 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] >> 12 28 ms 27 ms 29 ms 195.229.0.90 >> 13 36 ms 35 ms 33 ms 213.42.0.51 >> 14 28 ms 30 ms 29 ms 28 ms 213.42.25.85 >>Trace complete. >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Malik >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ncc-regional- >>> >>> >>middle- >> >> >>>east-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Saleem Albalooshi >>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:20 AM >>>To: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net >>>Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering >>> >>>Wa Alikum Al Salam, >>>Dear Malik, >>>Excellent initiative. >>> >>>Please find below the tracert results from CANAR (www.canar.sd) which is >>>a new telecom operator in SUDAN, services provided includes voice and >>>data services. since CANAR only have peering with EMIX the latency is >>>around 80 ms, with all other ISP's in the gulf region CANAR traffic is >>>routed via UK their the latency varies between 300ms up to 600 ms. >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>-- >> >> >>>------------- >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.etisalat.ae >>> >>>Tracing route to www.etisalat.ae [213.42.25.85] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 15 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 >>>4 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.21 >>>5 91 ms 79 ms 79 ms 195.229.28.49 >>>6 75 ms 79 ms 79 ms dxb-emix-rb.ge130.emix.ae [195.229.31.66] >>>7 96 ms 77 ms 79 ms 195.229.0.90 >>>8 81 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.0.35 >>>9 80 ms 79 ms 79 ms 213.42.25.85 >>> >>>Trace complete. >>> >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.mobily.com.sa >>> >>>Tracing route to www.mobily.com.sa [84.23.96.28] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 1 ms 3 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 16 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 >>>4 231 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 >>>5 217 ms 205 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com >>> >>> >>[62.216.129.50] >> >> >>>6 227 ms 296 ms 204 ms 62.216.147.22 >>>7 227 ms 213 ms 297 ms pos6-0.2488M.asd9nxg1.ip.tele.dk [83.88.21.65] >>>8 319 ms 308 ms 305 ms ams7.ams.seabone.net [195.215.109.78] >>>9 328 ms 306 ms 307 ms pal6-pal8-racc1.pal.seabone.net [195.22.218.211] >>>10 331 ms 407 ms 409 ms >>>customer-side-saudi-telecom-kacst-1-sa-pal6.pal.seabone.net >>>[195.22.197.198] >>>11 342 ms 400 ms 330 ms vlan1.ruh-acc1.isu.net.sa [212.138.112.4] >>>12 * * * Request timed out. >>>13 458 ms * 459 ms 212.71.32.7 >>>14 * * * Request timed out. >>>15 * ^C >>> >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.qtel.com.qa >>> >>>Tracing route to www.qtel.com.qa [212.77.204.33] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 16 ms 4 ms 5 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 17 ms 5 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.34 >>>4 222 ms 205 ms 206 ms 80.77.1.173 >>>5 431 ms 409 ms 412 ms 62.216.146.202 >>>6 429 ms 409 ms 408 ms 82.148.96.65 >>>7 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.205 >>>8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 82.148.96.137 >>>9 429 ms 364 ms 453 ms 82.148.96.141 >>>10 375 ms 407 ms 409 ms 212.77.222.226 >>>11 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 212.77.201.122 >>>12 * * * Request timed out. >>>13 * ^C >>> >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.batelco.bh >>> >>>Tracing route to www.batelco.bh [193.188.112.40] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 1 ms 2 ms 7 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 21 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.160.18 >>>4 219 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 >>>5 224 ms 306 ms 205 ms so-3-3-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com >>>[62.216.129.146] >>>6 228 ms 205 ms 204 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net >>>[129.250.10.201] >>>7 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] >>>8 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms if-7-0.core1.LHX-London.teleglobe.net >>>[195.219.15.214] >>>9 226 ms 205 ms 204 ms if-5-0.core2.LHX-London.teleglobe.net >>>[195.219.15.218] >>>10 227 ms 204 ms 198 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net >>> >>> >>[195.219.13.18] >> >> >>>11 425 ms 409 ms 409 ms ix-3-2.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net >>> >>> >>[66.198.126.2] >> >> >>>12 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms 217.17.233.204 >>>13 * * * Request timed out. >>>14 367 ms 409 ms 409 ms cblt3.batelco.com.bh [193.188.112.40] >>> >>>Trace complete. >>> >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.kuwait.kw >>> >>>Tracing route to kuwait.kw [62.150.113.4] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 1 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 15 ms 3 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 16 ms 4 ms 3 ms 196.29.160.18 >>>4 213 ms 204 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 >>>5 226 ms 204 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com >>> >>> >>[62.216.129.50] >> >> >>>6 247 ms 205 ms 206 ms ge-1-1-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net >>>[129.250.10.201] >>>7 225 ms 203 ms 204 ms linx1.teleglobe.net [195.66.224.51] >>>8 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms if-4-0.core2.LDN-London.Teleglobe.net >>>[195.219.96.70] >>>9 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-1-0.core2.LHX-London.Teleglobe.net >>>[195.219.96.122] >>>10 228 ms 204 ms 205 ms if-5-1.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net >>> >>> >>[195.219.13.18] >> >> >>>11 226 ms 203 ms 205 ms ix-9-4.bb1.RSD-Riyad.teleglobe.net >>> >>> >>[66.198.126.46] >> >> >>>12 227 ms 205 ms 203 ms 62.150.200.2 >>>13 225 ms 204 ms 205 ms isp.qualitynet.net [195.226.227.10] >>>14 227 ms 204 ms 203 ms 192.168.0.178 >>>15 * * * Request timed out. >>>16 ^C >>> >>>C:\Documents and Settings\>tracert www.oman.om >>> >>>Tracing route to om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] >>>over a maximum of 30 hops: >>> >>>1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 192.168.60.1 >>>2 15 ms 4 ms 4 ms 196.29.174.1 >>>3 15 ms 5 ms 5 ms 196.29.160.18 >>>4 222 ms 205 ms 204 ms 80.77.1.173 >>>5 226 ms 206 ms 204 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.ldn004.flagtel.com >>> >>> >>[62.216.129.50] >> >> >>>6 326 ms 307 ms 306 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr01.nyc007.flagtel.com >>>[62.216.128.233] >>>7 325 ms 306 ms 307 ms so-3-0-0.0.cjr01.nyc005.flagtel.com >>> >>> >>[62.216.128.50] >> >> >>>8 431 ms 409 ms 409 ms so-2-1-0.0.cjr02.lax001.flagtel.com >>>[62.216.128.241] >>>9 636 ms 619 ms 711 ms 80.77.0.42 >>>10 634 ms 620 ms 618 ms 82.178.32.22 >>>11 641 ms 619 ms 711 ms 62.231.254.142 >>>12 631 ms 619 ms 712 ms om22.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.44] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Malik Awan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahelayyil at awalnet.com Sat May 27 12:47:27 2006 From: ahelayyil at awalnet.com (Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:47:27 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Dear All It is my pleasure to introduce ARISPA (Arab Regional ISPs & DSPs Association), it is a non profit independent organization acting in the interests of Internet & Data Communications services providers in Arab region. Arab Peering Project (ARPP) is one of the key projects in ARISPA, the technical committee had their first meeting in Dubai last week and we are expecting an implementation report based on the project plan mentioned in ARPP document attached. Also kindly find more information about ARISPA (the forms are under process). Regards, Abdulaziz S. Al-Helayyil ________________________ ARISPA Assistant Secretary General www.arispa.org Al Faisaliah Group of Companies AwalNet Products & Marketing Manager E-mail : ahelayyil at awalnet.com Tel. +966 (1) 460 0111 / Ext 1210 Mobile : +966 (5) 0310-0301 FAX : +966 (1) 460 0148 ________________________________ From: Abdulla A. Hashim [mailto:abdulla.hashim at eim.ae] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:51 PM 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Arab Peering Project.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 103249 bytes Desc: Arab Peering Project.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ARISPA.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 376320 bytes Desc: ARISPA.ppt URL: From Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com Sun May 28 00:17:25 2006 From: Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com (Fahad AlShirawi) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 01:17:25 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <062f01c681db$59d610e0$6402a8c0@FahadLaptop> Who are the current members of ARISPA? Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil [mailto:ahelayyil at awalnet.com] Sent: 27 May 2006 13:47 To: Abdulla A. Hashim; Salman Al-Mannai Cc: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi; John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; Anwar El Yafi; Khalid Esmaeil; Waleed Al-Qallaf; Fahad Al-hussain; Feras Bakour; Aldubaikhi Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear All It is my pleasure to introduce ARISPA (Arab Regional ISPs & DSPs Association), it is a non profit independent organization acting in the interests of Internet & Data Communications services providers in Arab region. Arab Peering Project (ARPP) is one of the key projects in ARISPA, the technical committee had their first meeting in Dubai last week and we are expecting an implementation report based on the project plan mentioned in ARPP document attached. Also kindly find more information about ARISPA (the forms are under process). Regards, Abdulaziz S. Al-Helayyil ________________________ ARISPA Assistant Secretary General www.arispa.org Al Faisaliah Group of Companies AwalNet Products & Marketing Manager E-mail : ahelayyil at awalnet.com Tel. +966 (1) 460 0111 / Ext 1210 Mobile : +966 (5) 0310-0301 FAX : +966 (1) 460 0148 _____ From: Abdulla A. Hashim [mailto:abdulla.hashim at eim.ae] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:51 PM 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 ahelayyil at awalnet.com Sun May 28 08:11:18 2006 From: ahelayyil at awalnet.com (Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:11:18 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Dear Mr. Fahad You can find more information in the presentation. The operating members are: - Egypt: LINKdotNET. - Kuwait: Quality Net. - UAE: eCompnay. - Saudi Arabia: AwalNet. - Jordan: Wanadoo Jordan. - Lebanon: IDM. - Syria: SCS-Net, and Syria Telecom. - Oman: Oman Tel (Soon). Regards, Abdulaziz ________________________________ From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:Fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 1:17 AM To: Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil; 'Abdulla A. Hashim'; 'Salman Al-Mannai' Cc: 'Saleem Albalooshi'; 'John Leong'; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; 'Anwar El Yafi'; 'Khalid Esmaeil'; 'Waleed Al-Qallaf'; Fahad Al-hussain; 'Feras Bakour'; Aldubaikhi Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Who are the current members of ARISPA? Fahad. -----Original Message----- From: Abdulaziz Al. Helayyil [mailto:ahelayyil at awalnet.com] Sent: 27 May 2006 13:47 To: Abdulla A. Hashim; Salman Al-Mannai Cc: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi; John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; Anwar El Yafi; Khalid Esmaeil; Waleed Al-Qallaf; Fahad Al-hussain; Feras Bakour; Aldubaikhi Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Dear All It is my pleasure to introduce ARISPA (Arab Regional ISPs & DSPs Association), it is a non profit independent organization acting in the interests of Internet & Data Communications services providers in Arab region. Arab Peering Project (ARPP) is one of the key projects in ARISPA, the technical committee had their first meeting in Dubai last week and we are expecting an implementation report based on the project plan mentioned in ARPP document attached. Also kindly find more information about ARISPA (the forms are under process). Regards, Abdulaziz S. Al-Helayyil ________________________ ARISPA Assistant Secretary General www.arispa.org Al Faisaliah Group of Companies AwalNet Products & Marketing Manager E-mail : ahelayyil at awalnet.com Tel. +966 (1) 460 0111 / Ext 1210 Mobile : +966 (5) 0310-0301 FAX : +966 (1) 460 0148 ________________________________ From: Abdulla A. Hashim [mailto:abdulla.hashim at eim.ae] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:51 PM 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 vitally at yandex.ru Tue May 30 03:03:34 2006 From: vitally at yandex.ru (=?windows-1251?B?0ujs5e3q7uI=?=) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:03:34 -0400 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] =?windows-1251?B?yuDqX+L79e7k7fvlX/Nf8uXh/z8=?= Message-ID: <005601c683e8$ad8b9ca6$3aa9bb4f@hoq> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salmannai at ict.gov.qa Tue May 30 20:55:09 2006 From: salmannai at ict.gov.qa (Salman Al-Mannai) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 21:55:09 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering Message-ID: Where is every one? I'm bored, no more mails, we were lively last week. I'm still looking for more topics for Mr. Abdulla Hashim's invitation for a regional meeting on Internet Peering. 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 saleem at nic.ae Mon May 29 21:13:44 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:13:44 +0300 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering]] Message-ID: <447B47E8.3000304@nic.ae> In the link below the presentation from Mr. Salman Almanaei with regard to the discussed subject. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: UAEnic Admin Subject: Re: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering] Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:37:54 +0400 Size: 1670 URL: From saleem at nic.ae Mon May 29 22:05:58 2006 From: saleem at nic.ae (Saleem Albalooshi) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 23:05:58 +0300 Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering In-Reply-To: <4D63084985A4514CA5976C90D716D4C8EAA17C@EXCHANGE.corp.omantel.om> References: <4D63084985A4514CA5976C90D716D4C8EAA17C@EXCHANGE.corp.omantel.om> Message-ID: <447B5426.7080401@nic.ae> Thanks Salim For this good news. This clearly highlights that we have very effective people in this list. Let us keep up this good work and more team work and corporation for the benefits of our communities. Salim Bader Al Mazrui wrote: > Dear colleagues; > > I have been following up on the discussions going on and I wanted to > inform you'll that Omantel has established peering with Etisalat on > Wednesday 24th May using 5 x E1 links. We are only announcing our > local networks to each other. In the business sector, many > establishments communicate with their regional offices in the middle > east over the Internet. We are presently seeing over 4 Mbps traffic > after establishing the peer. > > Regards > > Salim Bader Al-Mazrui > Director Informatics Unit > Networks & Technology > Oman Telecommunications Company > > Tel: +968-631881 > Fax: +968-695482 > GSM: +968-99423279 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin at ripe.net on behalf of John Leong > Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM > To: mawan at cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem > Albalooshi' > Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net; MAJEED at qtel.com.qa > Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional PeeringInteresting point from > Malik. VoIP. > > My initial feeling is even if the routing between GCC countries > through US is totally inefficient from engineering point of view, but > if most of the data IP traffic is really not between the GCC country, > we may not care. > > However, if VoIP is to be a significant service, then I suspect there > may be a lot of VoIP traffic between GCC countries. > > In which case, one may pay attention to ITU recommendation G.114 on > One-way Transmission Time (note: not round trip) and its effect on > voice services. It suggests to keep the one way latency to under 150 > ms. 150 - 400 ms is acceptable depending on application. Anything > above 400 ms is not acceptable. > > Regards, > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Malik Awan > To: 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; 'Fahad AlShirawi' ; 'Saleem Albalooshi' > Cc: 'John Leong' ; ncc-regional-middle-east at ripe.net ; > MAJEED at qtel.com.qa > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:03 PM > Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering > > > So far we have seen latency of up to 600ms (900ms not seen yet) > within the region, which is not good for VoIP traffic. > > > > Regards, > > > > Malik >