<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html 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@01C68122.45388140"> <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=purple style='tab-interval:36.0pt'> <div class=Section1> Congratulations. Would <st1:country-region><st1:place>Oman</st1:place></st1:country-region> tell allow those companies to run VOIP in between themselves? I ask because in the light of the deregulation coming up in 7 months, things like this will eventually take place.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards,<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> -----Original Message----- From: Salim Bader Al Mazrui [mailto:salim@omantel.om] Sent: 26 May 2006 20:55 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> 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> </body> </html>