[af-ix-discuss] Renseignements, Interconnexion de deux POP

[Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg (Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg)]

Hello Nishal,
First of all, thank you for all the time you have devoted to bring me all this light.
Could you tell me about the interconnection of two different IXPs and the interconnection of two POPs of the same IXP knowing in the first case that there is only the interconnection link that is shared, whereas in the case of POPs of the same IXP, there is a whole network to build?


Best regards

Benny MBOKO
ARPCE- Congo

-----Message d'origine-----
De?: Nishal Goburdhan [mailto:nishal at inx.net.za] 
Envoy??: mercredi 10 janvier 2018 15:40
??: Benny MBOKO <Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg>
Cc?: af-ix-discuss at af-ix.net
Objet?: Re: Renseignements, Interconnexion de deux POP

On 4 Jan 2018, at 15:07, Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg wrote:

> Bonjour ? tous et tous mes v?ux les meilleurs,
>
> Je viens vers vous pour un peu plus de lumi?re sur l?interconnexion de 
> 2 POP.
> Comment peut-on interconnecter deux Points de Pr?sence d?un IXP 
> sachant que chaque POP a ses propres ressources (ASN et IP) Les 
> ressources de management de chaque POP interviennent-elles dans cette 
> interconnexion ?
> Quelles sont les ?tapes ? franchir et quelles sont les pr?requis ?
> Merci pour votre coup de pouce.
>
> Cordialement
> Benny Sh?rif MBOKO OTOKA
> Administrateur r?seau et syst?me
> Au Service du tr?s haut d?bit
> [cid:image001.png at 01D04223.BE54C720]
> Immeuble ARPCE ,91 bis Avenue de l?amiti? 
> Centre-ville-Brazzaville-Congo BP : 2490 T?l mobile : (+242) 06 653 29 
> 38/044525539 T?l bureau : (+242) 05 510 72 72 Site internet : 
> www.arpce.cg<http://www.arpce.cg/>
> Email : Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg<mailto:Benny.MBOKO at arpce.cg>


hi benny,
you had sent this message to the mailing list owner in error.  i?m redirecting this to the mailing list itself, (and i took the liberty of replying as well :-)

happy 2018 to you too!

it is not a good idea to interconnect internet exchange points.  it is better to allow internet exchange points to run and develop independently.  over time some internet exchange points may fail.  
that?s not necessarily a bad thing, and simply shows how the market, or policy, changes in a region.  in cases where you hear of IXPs interconnecting, it is generally the same IXP that has multiple PoPs within a city.  this usually happens when there are multiple colocation facilities in the city, and when peering participants (ie. the networks that want to peer) want to be able to connect to the same IX fabric, but from different facilities.

but, even this is not easy to accomplish, since the IXP administrator would have to take the effort of building infrastructure to connect across the city.  this infrastructure will not be free, and now places the burdens of capital expenditure (ie. equipment) and operational costs (ie. payments to keep the fibre running) on the shoulders of the IXP admin.  generally, IXPs are non-profits that work to improve interconnectivity (and not ISPs that are working to make money) so, increasing the cost of the IXP?s operations is something that you always want to avoid!
artificially increasing the cost of running the IXP, means that you would need to find creative ways of funding this, and that would quickly distract you, the IXP administrator, from the basic operations of the IXP - which is to run a stable fabric!  so, even if you are thinking of building, or extending your IX to multiple sites, i?d strongly suggest doing this, *if, and only if*, the cost of the fibre between the different locations is very cheap, or free!
note the first very big constraint here - the cost.

i started with cost, since, it is important to realise what an IXP is meant to do.  a well-managed IXP will reduce the average-per-bit-delivery-cost (ABPDC) of the networks that connect to it.  ie.  peering makes the network cheaper to run.  if this is not true, networks will stop peering, and continue/start purchasing IP transit instead.  so, if you start to introduce costs into the IXPs operations, the IXP will have to find ways to fund this, and, that goes against the what is probably the first rule of the IXP - which is to make interconnection cheaper!
of course, the costs go beyond just the recurring costs of the connectivity between the locations;  as the IX operators, if you did decide to build a distributed exchange, you?d need to have a 24x7 NOC to manage this.  and you can?t have just a single person, so that means staff costs, HR costs, etc.  all of which needs to be funded, and all of which makes it even more difficult to get networks to the IX to start.

there are other reasons as well;  if you do go ahead, and make this happen, then your participants - networks that would otherwise be peering - may complain that you are competing with them for transmission, and may withdraw from your IX.  that is *absolutely* to be avoided, since a network removing itself, is never a good thing for the peering environment.  and, in the long term, this is a direct disincentive to invest in telecoms infrastructure by the private sector;
  infrastructure, which otherwise, would lead to more competition, lower pricing, and a more stable overall network.

i?ve mentioned three reasons, and explained just one in some detail.  
but i?m hoping you start to see that this isn?t a good idea!

there only a few niche caches where an IXP interconnects directly with another;  these *always* come with limitations;  rules like you are not allowed to use more than X %bandwidth, etc.  in the long run, this situation does not scale, and is generally avoided.  of the more than
500 IXPs globally today, there are fewer than ten cases where this happens, and i would strongly encourage you to not follow this model.  
interconnecting IXPs may sound like a grand idea, and it serves a short-term political goal, but at a practical, and long-term economic level, it?s quite a disastrous thing to do to your economy.

there are many cities in the world that have multiple IXPs, that do not interconnect with each other.  multiple IXPs in a city work best, when they are considered separate (ie. different infrastructure) and generally only work well, when there?s already a rich mesh of interconnectivity.  in other words, get an IXP up and running;  try to get as many participants connected and peered, and when these participants start to feel like there is a need for resiliency, then it?s a good idea to consider getting another IXP up within the same 
city.   it?s a *terrible* idea to start two competing IXPs from day1, 
as this will likely fragment the peering market, and that?s something that you want to avoid at all costs.

i?ll pause here to give other list folk a chance to express their opinions, but i?m happy to explain this in greater detail if 
necessary.   ;-)

?n.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the IT101 Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.it101.be ______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the IT101 Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.it101.be
______________________________________________________________________