DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues for Consultation Q1. Is There a Need to Mandate IP Interconnection?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues for Consultation Q1. Is There a Need to Mandate IP Interconnection? Chapter 5: Issues for consultation Q1. Is there a need to mandate IP interconnection? If so, what should be the time frame for implementation of the same? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: The Internet Protocol (IP) has steadily gained widespread global acceptance as the preferred protocol not just for data traffic, of which the tremendous growth of the Internet traffic is in itself a primary example, but also for carrier voice transport. The share of international carrier traffic routed as VoIP has grown from 11% in 2002 to 36% in 2013 [1], and global service providers are steadily migrating their network infrastructure to IP. While the significance of circuit switching (TDM) is reducing globally, many established service providers still rely on their legacy TDM networks. Given the trends in the growth of internet data traffic, the IP-fication of the mobile radio access network (4G-LTE mobile technology is fundamentally based on an IP-core), and the growth of data centers and cloud computing, application & services have propelled service providers to adopt and migrate to IP networks. In India, most Service providers have to a large extent curtailed investing on the TDM-based network infrastructure and network expansions are being predominantly planned with NGN Voice over IP network. However, as it appears today, it is only due to requirements of regulatory compliance, that IP is being converted into TDM in the Media gateway at the POI. Hence, given the global trends, emergence and acceptance of IP as the preferred protocol for data and voice traffic, this is the right time to consider and permit IP interconnection in communication networks. Also, given the rapid adoption and growth of IP-based traffic, the time line for IP interconnection enablement should be ‘as soon as possible’. [1] Reference: Telegeography Report (2013) (Enclosed) Q2. Whether both TDM and IP interconnection should be allowed to coexist? If so, whether the existing regulation i.e. ‘Reference Interconnection Offer dated 12th July 2002’ addresses the requirements of IP interconnection also? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Most service providers today are investing and expanding their IP NGN infrastructure, given that capital outlay required to transition to new generation IP networks and converged services is significantly lower compared to TDM-based infrastructure, and this is complemented and accentuated by the service provider’s requirement to support convergence and burgeoning data and voice traffic growth, including those originating from OTT players. It is also becoming imperative for mobility services providers to evolve their RAN infrastructure to IP, and evolve the end-to-end network architecture to natively support IP-based 4G services. However, service providers have already made significant investments on TDM-based network infrastructure in the past, and these investments also need to be protected while transitioning from TDM to all-IP that will require both financial investment and time To begin with, the increase capacity and also the new POIs shall use IP Interconnection. We expect on a long term, the traffic over IP interconnect will increase and TDM will reduce to very small. Hence, we recommend for coexistence of both TDM and IP interconnections. Q3. In case IP interconnection is mandated in India, whether the enforcement of interconnection agreements should rely on (i) Bilateral agreements and dispute resolution; or (ii) Mandatory reference offer Cisco: No comment. Q4. In an IP based network scenario, which mode of interconnection is preferable to carry traffic:- peer-to- peer, Interconnect Exchange or combination of both? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Technically both models are feasible and have their own advantages. Telecom service providers (Operators) should be permitted to access direct interconnect (peer-to-peer) traffic, as well as at the Interconnect Exchange. The interconnect exchange could simplify and reduce overall cost for Telecom service providers for POI interconnect. The Interconnect exchange needs to be designed with carrier grade reliability and availability. ISOC (The Internet Society) has published a detailed document [2] “The Internet Exchange Point Toolkit and Best Practices Guide” which discusses several technical and economic issues related to maximizing the effectiveness of network interconnection. It is suggested that this document may be considered and reviewed in part to the answer to this question. It is also suggested that technical documents from the International Interconnection Forum for Services over IP (i3 Forum) that is supported by global service providers, may also be considered and reviewed in part to the answer to this question [3]. Potentially, multiple interconnect exchange could be planned across India for redundancy and also for supporting higher voice service quality by reducing network latency and jitter. [2] Reference: ISOC document “The Internet Exchange Point Toolkit and Best Practices Guide” Published February 2014. (Enclosed) [3] Reference: www.i3forum.org Q5. In case an Interconnect Exchange is required, should such Exchange be placed within each licensed service area or a single Interconnect Exchange will be adequate for the entire country? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Interconnect Exchange(s) should be planned at every licensed Service area. Having peering at multiple interconnect exchange could increase reliability, help reduce latency, control jitter, and increase quality of service. The interconnect at every interconnect exchange should be made optional if an operator is able to manage same service levels with peering at few interconnect exchange and also by having direct peering (Peer to peer). References [2] and [3] suggested in response to Q4 may also be relevant to be considered and reviewed in part to answer to this question. Q6. Whether any regulatory intervention is required to mandate the locations and structure of points of interconnection (POI) for IP based network architecture? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Regulatory could provide some guidelines in proportion to the traffic being handled by the POI. Link Speed, QOS, Redundancy / High availability etc. This will help the service providers to better plan for POIs. Q.7 what are your views on the migration from the existing interconnection regime-measured in terms of minutes of traffic to an IP interconnection regime replaced by measures of communication capacity? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Between Service providers, Current measurement methods (Minutes) based shall continue with IP interconnect as well. Q.8 In an IP interconnection between networks, comment on the type of charging principles that should be in place- (a) Capacity based in terms of Mbps. (b) Volume based in terms of Mbps. (c) QoS based. (d) A combination of the above three. Cisco: Interconnect exchange could follow combination of Capacity, Volume and QoS for charging. However, between service providers, the charges shall be based on Voice minutes. Q9. What should be the criteria to estimate the traffic minutes in IP environment if interconnection charges continue to be minute based? Please provide justification in support of your answer. Cisco: This depends on the Voice Codec, Sample interval, MOS for every call. Giving below a links for estimating the IP/Ethernet bandwidth per voice calls for different Voice Codec. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/voice/voice-quality/7934-bwidth-consume.html Q10. In addition to the above, any other modifications or components of IUC which are required to be reviewed in the IP based network scenario? Please provide all relevant details? Cisco: Carrier grade redundancy, Bandwidth/Links Scaling, High availability features to be considered. Also, the Network management system shall be planned for monitoring the KPI. Q11. Do you envisage any interconnection requirement for application & content service providers? If so, what should be the charging mechanism? Please provide all relevant details justifying your comments. Cisco: Yes, the same interconnect infrastructure could also be used to connect telecom service providers with Application & Content providers. They could reach to their customer through same infrastructure. However, there must be interconnecting agreement for application and Content service providers to avoid any dispute. Reference [2] ISOC paper gives some useful pointers in this direction, and hence may be considered and reviewed in part to the answer of this question. Q12. Whether the existing regulatory framework for measuring and reporting quality of service parameters as defined for PSTN/PLMN/Internet may continue to apply for IP based network services? Please comment with justifications. Cisco: Guidelines on Quality of service is very critical. Each operator may have different marking to classify the voice as priority traffic on their network. At POI level, honoring other operator marking and remarking is essential to prioritize the voice traffic. Documentation from Reference [3] is relevant here in part to the answer of this question. Q13. In the context of IP based network Migration, if the parameters in the existing QoS regulation are required to be reviewed immediately then please provide specific inputs as to what changes, if any, are required in the existing QoS regulations issued by the Authority. Please comment with justification. Q14. In case new QoS framework is desirable for IP based network, do you believe
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internet Exchange Points 2014 Report Contents
    Internet Exchange Points 2014 Report Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Notes on this report .................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Internet Exchange Point (IXP) ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2. About Euro-IX ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 List of Euro-IX Standard Members in 2014 ................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 List of Euro-IX Associate Members in 2014................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 List of Euro-IX Remote Members (Europe) .................................................................................................................. 6 2.4 List of Euro-IX Remote Members (outside of Europe) ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Exchange Points 2013 Report Contents
    Internet Exchange Points 2013 Report Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3 1.1 Foreword ................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Notes on this report ...............................................................................................................................3 1.3 Internet Exchange Point ........................................................................................................................4 1.4 About Euro-IX ........................................................................................................................................4 1.5 List of Euro-IX Affiliates .........................................................................................................................5 1.6 Participants distribution at Euro-IX member IXPs.................................................................................7 1.7 Evolution since 2007 ..............................................................................................................................8 2. European IXP growth since 1993 ..............................................................................................................9 2.1 IXP Trends in Europe since 1993 ...........................................................................................................9 2.2
    [Show full text]
  • Hosting Solutions
    Hosting Hosting Solutions Whether you need a reliable home Colocation for your website or a more bespoke Host your own network and server equipment in a secure, purpose-built solution, we’ll provide you with data centre environment Dedicated Servers technically superior hosting, backed We’ll provide you with enterprise class server hardware, hosted in a purpose- by a personal approach to service built data centre and provide you with and support. full remote access Managed Hosting Let us design, build, manage and maintain a hosting solution, tailored to your specific needs, and hosted in one Reliable hosting services have been a feature of our service portfolio for over 10 of our purpose-built data centres years. Domain Names We provide a suite of hosting services out of our purpose-built data centres in Establish your presence on the Internet Rochdale and Leeds. We also have data centre presence in Manchester and London, and protect your brand all of which are connected to each other and the wider Internet by our resilient 10Gbps network. Resilient, high performance data storage is available thanks to our Web Hosting Build your own website using one of our investment in an enterprise class, multi-site Storage Area Network. affordable Web Hosting packages Building on these foundations, we partner with leading hardware and software vendors enabling us to provide end to end hosting solutions which meet the requirements of single users and small businesses, as well as large multi-site organisations looking to host mission critical service infrastructure. With a comprehensive range of hosting services on offer, and a thorough approach to understanding your requirements, we are ideally positioned to provide the right solution to your hosting needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Exchange – a Solution Towards Cost Effective and Quality Internet Access
    Internet Exchange – a solution towards cost effective and quality Internet access Rishi Chawla LLB, MBA, CCNA, BBA Country Co-ordinator GIPI India [email protected] URL www.gipi.org.in ABSTRACT To speed up the spread of the Internet in India, the cost of Internet connectivity and bandwidth must be reduced and the quality of service improved. One of the most effective mechanisms to accomplish both cost and quality benefits is the Internet Exchange Point (IXP). An IXP interconnects Internet service providers (ISPs) in a region or country, allowing them to exchange domestic Internet traffic locally without having to send those messages across multiple international hops to reach their destination. For instance in the absence of an IXP in India the Internet traffic originating from one ISP with a destination of another ISP being just miles away has to make a round-the-world trip, thus consuming international bandwidth which if saved would result in savings of foreign exchange to the country (and also give quality Internet access to the Users) This paper introduces the concept of Internet Exchange and gives out some of the reasons for the need of Internet Exchange in India. It also briefly discusses the Infrastructure required for an IXP as also its Organisation and Management. India today has an Internet subscriber base of just 3.3Million as against the target of 230 Million for the year 2007, and it can be achieved only if the cost of Internet access is brought down and quality improved. IXP is one of the solutions towards achieving this target.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Frankfurt As a Location for Cloud Connectivity
    The Significance of Frankfurt as a location for Cloud Connectivity The significance of Frankfurt as a location for Cloud Connectivity The Significance of Frankfurt as a location for Cloud Connectivity Executive Summary → On the infrastructural side the location Frankfurt am Main is the backbo- ne of the digital business in Germany. As far as data center density and connectivity to central internet hubs are concerned, Frankfurt is the leader throughout Germany and Europe. → The continuous relocation of data and applications to external cloud pro- vider infrastructures made Frankfurt the stronghold for cloud computing in Europe. It is expected that almost all relevant cloud computing provi- ders will make their investments in Frankfurt during the upcoming years. → Criteria, such as latency, data throughput and scalability are playing a decisive role in operating enterprise- and real time applications. The significance of Frankfurt will increase continuously due to meeting these conditions. → The provision of applications through modern cloud-operating concepts is of increasing importance to the CIO’s of larger corporations. Against this background, the location- and provider selection plays an elementary role. Only high-performance connectivity between an on premise cloud and the customer-infrastructure guarantees the desired “quality of service“. → The term “cloud connectivity” is going to play a central role in creating cloud strategies and architectural concepts. Cloud computing for compa- nies only makes sense if hybrid cloud operation
    [Show full text]
  • Vantage Points in the Internet 35 3.1 Overview and Facets of Vantage Points
    TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN FAKULTÄT FÜR ELEKTROTECHNIK UND INFORMATIK LEHRSTUHL FÜR INTELLIGENTE NETZE UND MANAGEMENT VERTEILTER SYSTEME Understanding Benefits of Different Vantage Points in Today’s Internet vorgelegt von Jan Böttger (M.Sc.) geb. in Berlin Fakultät IV – Elektrotechnik und Informatik der Technischen Universität Berlin zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades –DOKTOR DER INGENIEURWISSENSCHAFTEN (DR.-ING.) – genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender Prof. Dr. Axel Küpper, Technische Universität Berlin Gutachterin: Prof. Anja Feldmann, Ph.D., Technische Universität Berlin Gutachter: Dr. Walter Willinger, NIKSUN (USA) Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Odej Kao, Technische Universität Berlin Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Seifert, Technische Universität Berlin Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 24.10.2016 Berlin 2017 Eidesstattliche Erklärung Ich versichere an Eides statt, dass ich diese Dissertation selbständig verfasst und nur die angegebe- nen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Datum Jan Böttger (M.Sc.) 3 Abstract Measuring the Internet is indispensable to a better understanding of its current state and trends, but obtaining measurements is difficult both qualitatively and quantitatively. The challenges of “Internet Measurement” are manifold due to the nature of the beast, namely its complexity, dis- tribution, and constant change. The Internet grows continuously and since it consists of many interdependent autonomous systems, there is no ground truth regarding how it looks – not even retrospectively. Nonetheless, we rely on a fundamental understanding of its state and dynamics to approach a solution. Since it is impractical to understand such complex systems at once – research on complex systems is older than the Internet itself – in this study we focus on a better under- standing of the key players on the Internet by measuring Internet service providers (ISPs), Internet exchange points (IXPs), and systems running the Internet, such as routing, packet exchange, and the Domain Name System (DNS).
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Report 2014 Ofcom’S Second Full Analysis of the UK’S Communications Infrastructure
    Infrastructure Report 2014 Ofcom’s second full analysis of the UK’s communications infrastructure Publication date: 8 December 2014 Infrastructure Report 2014 About this document Every three years, Ofcom is required by the Communications Act 2003 to prepare a report for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the status of electronic communications networks and services in the UK. We are then required to publish the report.1 The UK’s communications infrastructure is a vital enabler, supporting a vast amount of economic and social activity, by both consumers and businesses. This report provides an overview of the state of that infrastructure: its coverage, capacity and reliability. We consider these at a national level and the variation across the UK. The report looks at: • the coverage, performance and capacity of networks and services; • use of spectrum; • infrastructure sharing; and • security and resilience. The main networks considered are the fixed broadband and telephony networks; mobile voice and data networks; Wi-Fi; and broadcast and radio networks. The report includes detailed analysis of operators’ data, external research and an assessment of the main strategic and policy implications. The first Infrastructure Report was published in November 2011. Since then we have issued annual updates, focusing on the areas of the most rapid change such as the coverage and capacity of fixed, mobile and broadcast networks. This second full report will be of interest to those looking to understand the nature, performance and reach of the UK’s communications infrastructure. It will be of direct relevance to policymakers and industry stakeholders and, we hope, will make interesting reading for anyone who wants to explore how our infrastructure is evolving.
    [Show full text]
  • Opera5ng ISP Networks in Europe
    Operang ISP Networks in Europe Guide for the North American Market Andy Davidson – LoNAP David Freedman - Claranet Amusing Picture 0.316 Why come? • Perhaps you want to extend your peering reach, to come and join exchanges in Europe and obtain more peers. • Perhaps you are offering connec&vity services and want to connect customers in Europe directly. • Perhaps you are building your own CDN and just want to come and put some boxes down. Source: Map courtesy of Greg’s Cable Map (h]p://www.cablemap.info) , latency informaon supplied by Telegeography Geng There (h]p://www.telegrography.com) 1Gbit/sec = ~ $4k MRC, 10Gbit/Sec = ~ $10K MRC Global Crossing AC-1 north Brookhaven USA to Beverwijk NL Wet RTT 74.7ms Hibernia Atlan&c north Lynn USA to Southport UK Wet RTT 63.5ms Various Global Crossing AC-1 south Brookhaven/Bellport USA Brookhaven USA to to Bude UK Whitesands Bay UK Wet RTT ~60ms Wet RTT 58.2ms Popularity Source: PacketExchange (h]p://www.packetexchange.net) Coming via Pseudowire Popularity (% PW sold): SJC <-> AMS 2% SJC <-> LON 22% SJC <-> DUB 2% LAX <-> DUB 3% LAX <-> LON 2% NYC DUB NYC <-> LON 31% LON AMS WAS NYC <-> FRA 2% FRA SJC WAS <-> LON 16% LAX • London is popular, from both the East and West coast • London and Dublin both popular “Hop off” Capacity From To Avg Cost (MRC) points to reach mainland 1G / 10G West Coast UK $6000 / $17000 • LINX and then AMS-IX are the most popular 1G / 10G East Coast UK $3000 / $11000 Exchanges to join 1G / 10G West Coast Mainland $7500 / $18500 • Average costs for these Pseudowires 1G / 10G
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Report 2014 Ofcom’S Second Full Analysis of the UK’S Communications Infrastructure
    Infrastructure Report 2014 Ofcom’s second full analysis of the UK’s communications infrastructure Publication date: 8 December 2014 Infrastructure Report 2014 About this document Every three years, Ofcom is required by the Communications Act 2003 to prepare a report for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the status of electronic communications networks and services in the UK. We are then required to publish the report.1 The UK’s communications infrastructure is a vital enabler, supporting a vast amount of economic and social activity, by both consumers and businesses. This report provides an overview of the state of that infrastructure: its coverage, capacity and reliability. We consider these at a national level and the variation across the UK. The report looks at: the coverage, performance and capacity of networks and services; use of spectrum; infrastructure sharing; and security and resilience. The main networks considered are the fixed broadband and telephony networks; mobile voice and data networks; Wi-Fi; and broadcast and radio networks. The report includes detailed analysis of operators’ data, external research and an assessment of the main strategic and policy implications. The first Infrastructure Report was published in November 2011. Since then we have issued annual updates, focusing on the areas of the most rapid change such as the coverage and capacity of fixed, mobile and broadcast networks. This second full report will be of interest to those looking to understand the nature, performance and reach of the UK’s communications infrastructure. It will be of direct relevance to policymakers and industry stakeholders and, we hope, will make interesting reading for anyone who wants to explore how our infrastructure is evolving.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sub Processors
    Data Sub Processors May 2021 Data Sub Processors As part of our contractual obligations or other legitimate processing reason, we may share PII with the following suppliers which consists of but is not limited to decision maker's or end users name, email address and IP address. Details of those sub-processors are as follow: 1 Connect Ltd 2bm Limited Access UK Ltd Adobe Airband Community Internet Limited Amazon Web Services Arrow ECS Limited Avensys Networks Boston Limited BT Cerberus, LLC Cielo Costa Ltd Cisco CMS Distribition Ltd Cogent Communications UK Ltd Compuserve Services Ltd Concordia International Forwarding Ltd Craft CMS Creditsafe Business Solutions Limited Crystal Thinking Daisy Wholesale Databarracks Limited DATEL Computing Ltd Datto Dell Corporation Difference Corporation ltd Dun & Bradstreet Duo Security Eco Electrical Contractors LLP Data Sub Processors 1 May 2021 Egress Software Technologies Ltd EntaNet International Limited Epsilon Equinix Exclaimer Limited Exclusive Networks Limited Exertis UK & Ireland Gamma Gamma Telecom Limited Geotek Biz Glide Business Ltd GMO GlobalSign Ltd GTT Communications Inc HP Ignition Technology Infinigate UK Ltd Ingram Micro (UK) and subsidiaries Insight Direct UK Ltd Inty Ltd iPinnacle Ltd Itelligentsia ITS Technology Group ITW IX Reach Ltd JCM Business Solutions Ltd Joraph Managed Services KCOM (Eclipse) KEMP LDEX2 Level3 Linix Limited LINX Lonap Ltd (London Access Point) London Internet Exchange Ltd Nimble Storage MailEnable Data Sub Processors 2 May 2021 Meraki Microsoft Mimecast Services
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Report 2013 Update
    Infrastructure Report 2013 Update Publication date: 24 October 2013 Contents Section Page 1 Summary 1 2 Introduction and background to the report 17 3 Fixed broadband networks 19 4 Mobile networks and Wi-Fi 45 5 Broadcast Networks 69 6 Resilience 73 7 Traffic management, IPv4 address exhaustion and interconnection 77 Annex Page 1 Data assumptions/methodology 93 2 List of alternative broadband providers 97 3 Glossary 100 4 List of Broadband UK delivery projects 104 2013 UK Communications Infrastructure Report Section 1 1 Summary 1.1 This report provides a snapshot of the state of the UK communications infrastructure. This is our third annual report and, as in previous years, it focuses on the coverage and capacity of the networks which are used by the large majority of UK consumers. 1.2 There is currently a significant level of public debate about the importance of investment in communications infrastructure. This debate is taking place across Europe1, as well as being a key policy issue for the UK Government2 and for individual nations and local authorities3. The information we publish in this Infrastructure Report is intended to provide an objective evidence base for both the development of public policy, and individual consumer choice. 1.3 As highlighted in our Communications Market Report4, consumers are demanding more from communications networks. They are connecting more devices and using more services than ever before and are increasingly multitasking – using multiple devices and multiple services at the same time. The boundaries between broadcast and broadband networks are also blurring as connected TVs and set top boxes allow consumers seamlessly to switch between services delivered on different networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Windmill, Christopher (2013) Hierarchical Network Topographical Routing
    Windmill, Christopher (2013) Hierarchical network topographical routing. EngD thesis, University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4607 Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Hierarchical Network Topographical Routing Christopher Mark Windmill MEng (Hons) Electronics and Computer Science Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Engineering in System Level Integration School of Engineering University of Glasgow December 2013 Abstract Within the last 10 years the content consumption model that underlies many of the assumptions about traffic aggregation within the Internet has changed; the previous short burst transfer followed by longer periods of inactivity that allowed for statistical aggregation of traffic has been increasingly replaced by continuous data transfer models. Approaching this issue from a clean slate perspective; this work looks at the design of a network routing structure and supporting protocols for assisting in the delivery of large scale content services. Rather than approaching a content support model through existing IP models the work takes a fresh look at Internet routing through a hierarchical model in order to highlight the benefits that can be gained with a new structural Internet or through similar modifications to the existing IP model.
    [Show full text]