<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@01C6818D.8E2E2B00"> <link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="cid:editdata.mso@01C6818D.8E2E2B00">  <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=navy style='tab-interval:36.0pt'> <div class=Section1> 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 <st1:country-region><st1:place>Oman</st1:place></st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region><st1:place>Qatar</st1:place></st1:country-region>… Follow the thought.<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> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: Malik Awan [mailto:mawan@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@ripe.net; MAJEED@qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering <o:p> </o:p> Dear Salim,<o:p></o:p> 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):<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]<o:p></o:p> > over a maximum of 30 hops:<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > 1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1<o:p></o:p> > 2 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms 195.229.244.25<o:p></o:p> > 3 42 ms 22 ms 37 ms 195.229.244.195<o:p></o:p> > 4 46 ms 23 ms 22 ms 195.229.244.121<o:p></o:p> > 5 39 ms 22 ms 22 ms 194.170.0.138<o:p></o:p> > 6 43 ms 23 ms 23 ms 195.229.0.241<o:p></o:p> > 7 38 ms 22 ms 22 ms 195.229.31.76<o:p></o:p> > 8 42 ms 35 ms 37 ms 195.229.28.70 <EMIX><o:p></o:p> > 9 50 ms 33 ms 34 ms 82.178.32.22<o:p></o:p> > 10 53 ms 32 ms 34 ms 62.231.254.142<o:p></o:p> > 11 62 ms 38 ms 48 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Trace complete.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> C:\>tracert www.omantel.co.om<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Tracing route to om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]<o:p></o:p> over a maximum of 30 hops:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1<o:p></o:p> 2 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.127.166<o:p></o:p> 3 15 ms 16 ms 15 ms 213.130.114.25<o:p></o:p> 4 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms 82.148.96.186<o:p></o:p> 5 16 ms 20 ms 17 ms 82.148.96.202<o:p></o:p> 6 19 ms 16 ms 16 ms 82.148.97.66<o:p></o:p> 7 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.119.94.77<o:p></o:p> 8 251 ms 251 ms 250 ms 12.123.33.62<o:p></o:p> 9 254 ms 252 ms 252 ms tbr1-cl1474.attga.ip.att.net [12.122.12.121]<o:p></o:p> 10 251 ms 249 ms 249 ms 12.123.20.201<o:p></o:p> 11 240 ms 242 ms 239 ms dcr1-so-4-0-0.atlanta.savvis.net [192.205.32.118]<o:p></o:p> 12 240 ms 242 ms 243 ms bcs1-so-2-0-0.Washington.savvis.net [204.70.192.54]<o:p></o:p> 13 247 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs1-so-4-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.6]<o:p></o:p> 14 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcs2-so-6-0-0.NewYork.savvis.net [204.70.192.38]<o:p></o:p> 15 244 ms 243 ms 245 ms bcs1-so-0-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.192.122]<o:p></o:p> 16 243 ms 240 ms 241 ms bcs2-as0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.202]<o:p></o:p> 17 240 ms 241 ms 240 ms bcr1-so-1-0-0.Londonlnx.savvis.net [204.70.193.121]<o:p></o:p> 18 242 ms 242 ms 241 ms beyond-the-network.Londonlnx.savvis.net [206.24.169.10]<o:p></o:p> 19 528 ms 525 ms 527 ms omantel.pos3-2.ar03.ldn01.pccwbtn.net [63.218.13.134]<o:p></o:p> 20 536 ms 528 ms 534 ms 82.178.32.21<o:p></o:p> 21 614 ms 606 ms 633 ms 62.231.254.130<o:p></o:p> 22 700 ms 685 ms 663 ms om26.omantel.net.om [212.72.23.29]<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Trace complete.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Malik<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center> </div> From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim@omantel.om] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:55 PM To: John Leong; mawan@cmu.edu; Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; Saleem Albalooshi Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net; MAJEED@qtel.com.qa Subject: RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> 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@ripe.net on behalf of John Leong Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 8:27 PM To: mawan@cmu.edu; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Fahad AlShirawi'; 'Saleem Albalooshi' Cc: ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net; MAJEED@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@ripe.net ; MAJEED@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<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>