<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C67F2D.DA7F0090"> <link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="cid:editdata.mso@01C67F2D.DA7F0090">  <title>Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering</title> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='tab-interval:36.0pt'> <div class=Section1> Salman,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Saleem,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The issue is not if there exists a peering link. Yes, it is there. However, as I sit here in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Bahrain</st1:place></st1:country-region> and tracert a site in the UAE, I still go via the <st1:country-region><st1:place>US</st1:place></st1:country-region>. 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Fahad.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: Salman Al-Mannai [mailto:salmannai@ict.gov.qa] Sent: 24 May 2006 11:10 To: Saleem Albalooshi; Fahad AlShirawi Cc: John Leong; ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering <o:p> </o:p> <div id=idOWAReplyText44658> <div> Dear Saleem and Fahad,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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).<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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)<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> NB: Fahad, we have already discussed the contents of the presentation in January.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> regards<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center> </div> From: ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@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@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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. <a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/en/Meetings/first/Presentations.html">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/en/Meetings/first/Presentations.html</a> <a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/wgs/ae_kw.html">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/wgs/ae_kw.html</a> <a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/Files/gcc_peering_update.ppt">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/Files/gcc_peering_update.ppt</a> 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@ripe.net >[<a href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net">mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net</a>] On Behalf Of John Leong >Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58 >To: Saleem Albalooshi; ncc-regional-middle-east@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" <saleem@nic.ae> >To: <ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net> >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 >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >----------------- > > > > ><o:p></o:p> </div> <pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>******************************************************************<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>The information in this email and any attachments thereto, may<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>contain information that is confidential, protected by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>intellectual property rights, and may be legally privileged. It<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>anyone else is unauthorized. Any use, disclosure, copying, or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>distribution of the information contained herein by persons other<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>than the designated addressee is unauthorized and may be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>delete this message immediately from your system. If you believe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>that you have received this email in error, please contact the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>sender or ictQATAR at + 974 (4) 935 922. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>Any views expressed in this email or its attachments are those of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>the individual sender except where the sender, expressly and with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt'>authority, states them to be the views of ictQATAR. <o:p></o:p></pre></div> </body> </html>