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

fahad at 2connectbahrain.com fahad at 2connectbahrain.com
Fri Aug 3 11:46:31 GMT 2007

True as long as they allow for peering free and allow other transit providers there. Considering landing station owners are also in the transit supply business, this will be very difficult!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from MTC-Vodafone

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco.com>

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:10:05 
To:Fahad AlShirawi <fahad at 2connectbahrain.com>
Cc:menog at menog.net
Subject: Re: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

Hi Fahad,

Fahad AlShirawi said the following on 3/8/07 08:24:
> God I am way behind in my emails....

Keep up, keep up!! ;-)

> Amjad, we had Flag discuss the IP pops with us during the last MENOG.
> However, this is operator specific: Flag. Not carrier neutral. This won't
> help with IX propagation or peering. It's more of a transit business. If
> they aggregate regional traffic, it's so they'll have a better transit case
> not because they'll allow us to swap traffic.

Well, I think it actually would end up being a win-win for both
localised peering at an IXP, and for the transit business. Certainly
seems to be win-win most other places around the world.

Local IXP has lots of ISPs peering with each other (peering = zero cost
exchange of local routes). And if these ISPs want to get transit
somewhere (transit = paying someone to carry your routes/traffic), then
a transit provider or few being present at those IXP locations means
they can serve that need.

If there are lots of IXPs, then the transit providers (plural) provide
the paid transit between the ISPs participating in the various IXPs.


More information about the Menog mailing list