[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" <saleem at nic.ae>
>To: <ncc-regional-middle-east at 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
>>
>>    
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>
>
>
>  
>