[ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering

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.