[ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

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" <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 
>
>******************************************************************
>
>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. 
>