<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear All:<br>
<br>
I believe all of us strongly support the peering concepts between
various ISPs and IXs in the region due to many benefits that such
peering can bring.<br>
<br>
Let me also advise you ; that the ARISPA ( Arab Regional ISPs
Association ) which formally recently formed ; is discussing such
topics but on the Arab region level ; the objective of this initiative
or idea is to establish first exchange point in key geographical areas
in the arab region and then establish peering between these regional
IXs.<br>
<br>
I might ask Abdulaziz AL Helayyil ( the secretariat of ARISPA ) or
Khalid Esmaeil ( from Etisalat and one of the peering member of ARISPA
) to explain more about this initiative.<br>
<br>
Also; we officially through this email ; as a Vice President of ARISPA
board ask all the ISPs to join ARISPA ; such association is addressing
all the cooperation matters among the Arab ISPs with the objective to
improve and enhance the internet industry in the region.<br>
<br>
Thanks and looking forward to see Qtel; Kanartel; Batelco and others
joining this Association.<br>
<br>
<br>
Salman Al-Mannai wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midEA92E2E76C94BF478B3E6A9B29B864220A1D5B@ICTEXBE01.ICT.LOCAL"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<title>Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering</title>
<div id="idOWAReplyText44658" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">Dear
Saleem and Fahad,</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">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).</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">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)</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">NB: Fahad, we have already
discussed the contents of the presentation in January.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">regards</font></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net">ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net</a> on behalf of Saleem Albalooshi<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wed 5/24/2006 12:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Fahad AlShirawi<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'John Leong'; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net">ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size="2">Dear Fahad,<br>
Thank you very much for your valuable participation.<br>
<br>
The good new is that all the main ISP's in the GCC countries are already<br>
interconnected since 2004.<br>
<br>
Below are some documents that may help in understanding the peering<br>
status between the GCC countries.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/en/Meetings/first/Presentations.html">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/en/Meetings/first/Presentations.html</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/wgs/ae_kw.html">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/wgs/ae_kw.html</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/Files/gcc_peering_update.ppt">http://www.gcc-itrc.ae/Files/gcc_peering_update.ppt</a><br>
<br>
What I now is that Etisalat has built an excellent peering connectivity<br>
with most of the countries in the region, for example:<br>
1. All GCC countries (Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman)<br>
2. India<br>
3. Singapore<br>
4. Malaysia<br>
5. Cypris<br>
6. Taiwan<br>
7. Japan<br>
8. Hong Kong<br>
9. Sudan<br>
Also with some international Exchange points i.e LINEX and NYIIX.<br>
<br>
and Much more,<br>
Mr. Moeen Aqrabawi, could you please help in updating us on the status<br>
of the Peering connectivity from the UAE.<br>
<br>
We need to here from other members in this list on the peering<br>
connectivity from their countries.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Saleem<br>
UAEnic<br>
<br>
Fahad AlShirawi wrote:<br>
<br>
>My first contribution to this mailing list:<br>
><br>
>John,<br>
><br>
>While I definitely agree with your assessment, there are issues in
the<br>
>GCC that sadly make peering a dream we are all waiting for but are
very<br>
>unlikely to realize any time soon. On one hand, the PTTs are all
looking<br>
>to peer with each other, while at the same time are wary of each
other.<br>
>The only two countries I know off that have appropriate direct
peering<br>
>are the Emarites and Qatar. Even that is only something I heard and
I am<br>
>not actually sure off. In any case, when a new player indicates
interest<br>
>in a peering arrangement, the propose IP Transit. It's the
mentality of:<br>
>We are big and you are small, why do you need peering? Just take IP<br>
>Transit from us.<br>
><br>
>On the other hand, bandwidth to the US, once you hit a landing
point, is<br>
>a lot cheaper than bandwidth controlled by monopolies in the GCC.
There<br>
>are no IRUs currently between GCC countries and the first cable
system<br>
>of its kind that will allow someone other than the monopolies to own<br>
>capacity is... Well, Falcon, but god knows when Falcon will be
complete.<br>
>It's over a year late now. Additionally, in some countries, because
FLAG<br>
>partnered with the PTTs there, they will not sell capacity directly
to a<br>
>competitor of the PTT but will leave it up to the PTT to control.
Their<br>
>argument, said in private, is that they can't anger their partners
by<br>
>selling to a competitor of theirs. Publicly, their position is
this: You<br>
>don't need the capacity. We are trying to help you. Don't take it.<br>
><br>
>When you insist you do, you are ignored.<br>
><br>
>As to the NAP issue, there are people working on building one and
then<br>
>attempting to attract the business. I know Mr. Ahmad AlHujairi who I<br>
>believe is a member of this list is doing just that with Gulf
Gateway<br>
>Internet. I wish them all the luck and success. I would like to see
this<br>
>happen and I would like to see peering become a reality. Still, I
think<br>
>they are a long way away from that kind of success.<br>
><br>
>In any case, so far, I feel that STC in Saudi is the most open to<br>
>negotiations and discussion.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
>Fahad.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>-----Original Message-----<br>
>From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net">ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net</a><br>
>[<a href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net">mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east-admin@ripe.net</a>]
On Behalf Of John Leong<br>
>Sent: 22 May 2006 11:58<br>
>To: Saleem Albalooshi; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net">ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net</a><br>
>Subject: Re: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering<br>
><br>
><br>
>Sorry for the late response. Yes, it is totally inefficient (and<br>
>strange)<br>
>to have traffic between the GCC countries to go through the US.<br>
><br>
>Not only will it add latency you are also unecessary using up some
very<br>
>expensive long haul bandwidth. BTW: On latency, while the longer
round<br>
><br>
>trip propagation delay is clearly a factor, the real pain is
additional<br>
>router hops. Routers are real nasty since besides queueing delay,
they<br>
>are<br>
>congestion points. The impact of packet loss [on TCP] is orders of<br>
>magnitude more than any propagation delay, since you will have to
pay<br>
>the<br>
>direct penality of time out [to discover you have lost a packet] as
well<br>
>as<br>
>suffer longer term side effect of having you transmission window<br>
>reduced.<br>
><br>
>In any event, you should peer with each other within the GCC. From<br>
>engineering point of view, NAP makes a lot of sense. However,<br>
>practically,<br>
>most of the ISPs do bi-lateral rather than multilateral peering at a<br>
>single<br>
>location so the NAP's role is somewhat diminished.<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>John<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>----- Original Message -----<br>
>From: "Saleem Albalooshi" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:saleem@nic.ae"><saleem@nic.ae></a><br>
>To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net"><ncc-regional-middle-east@ripe.net></a><br>
>Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:26 AM<br>
>Subject: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Regional Peering<br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
>>Dear All,<br>
>>Kindly find below a writeup about the importance of establishing<br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>peering<br>
> <br>
><br>
>>connectivity between the regional ISP's, please feel free to
correct<br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>or<br>
> <br>
><br>
>>comment on any technical or linguistic information in the
writeup<br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>below.<br>
> <br>
><br>
>>Saleem Al-Balooshi<br>
>>UAEnic<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>-----------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
<br>
</font></p>
</div>
<pre>******************************************************************
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>