[menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

[Salman Al-Mannai]

Hello Bill,

Many thanks for highlighting the issue from this particular perspective,
yes I agree with you.

I personally in favor of many IXes (covering major cities in the ME)

Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 4:32 AM
To: Salman Al-Mannai
Cc: Abeer Kamal; Fahad AlShirawi; Timo Liuska; menog at menog.net; Kais
Al-Essa
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

      On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Salman Al-Mannai wrote:
    > The initial proposal, as put together by Saleem
    > suggested two options: Centralized Model and
    > Distributed or Bilateral.  On the centralized model, 
    > the obvious locations for an IX are:  Dubai-UAE and 
    > Jeddah-KSA primarily due to the global FO availability.

Hello, Salman.

With regard to the above, I think that if we were having this
conversation 
fifteen years ago, it would still have been reasonable to discuss the
need 
for a single IXP for the region.  But the time for that is pretty
clearly 
past...  If you look at this map of IXP distribution:

https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/summary/

You'll note that the Middle East is the only developed region of the
world 
other than Mexico that doesn't already have a fairly dense distribution
of 
IXPs to support communications growth, at this point.  Rather than 
thinking about one location, I think you'd need to be looking at thirty 
or forty, to reach parity.  And if you think about what thirty or forty 
cities in the Middle East means, you don't have to do any winnowing: it 
includes every capitol and every major city in the region.  Just as
every 
capitol and every major city in Europe and East Asia have them.

So if the question is "Jeddah or Dubai" the answer is "yes, and Manama
and 
Doha and Muscat and Riyadh..."

                                -Bill