DOCSLIB.ORG

Increasing Internet Connectivity Through the Development of Local Networks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Increasing Internet Connectivity Through the Development of Local Networks Increasing Internet Connectivity through the Development of Local Networks Written for the Office of the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunications Union in reference to Administrative Region E Keertan Kini, WeiHua Li, Daniela Miao, Lauren Stephens {krkini16, wli17, dmiao, lhs} @mit.edu 1 Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude towards Danny Weitzner, Peter Lord, Hal Abelson, and Alan Davidson for their valuable guidance, mentorship and feedback on this paper. This work could have not been completed without their arduous support. This paper also benefits significantly from the expertise of Jessie Stickgold-Sarah, Michael Trice and Anna Wexler. Their advice on general argument formation was crucial to the success of this work. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Historical Background 1.1 Scale and Inefficient Routing Problems 1.2 Inefficient Routing Phenomenon 1.3 Background on Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) 1.4 IXPs Current State 2. Problem 2.1 Internet Connectivity 2.2 Past Cable Faults Case Studies 2.3 Cost of Latency and Loss of Connectivity 2.4 IXPs as More Secure Alternative for Local Traffic Exchange 3. Policy Recommendations 3.1 Relevance to ITU 3.2 Benefits of IXPs 3.3 Past Policies Regarding IXPs 3.4 Specific Policy Recommendations: India and Bangladesh 4. Support for Policy Recommendations 4.1 Case study: Kenya 4.2 Case study: Singapore 4.3 Case Study: Brazil 5. Analysis of Policy Recommendations 5.1 Avoiding Balkanization of the Internet 5.2 Political Challenges for Implementation 5.3 Scalability of Local Replication 5.4 Effectiveness of the Local Replication 5.5 Privacy Issues 6. Conclusion Appendix I: Glossary Appendix II: Data on Submarine Cable Vulnerabilities Appendix III: Past Attempts to Mitigate Submarine Cable Vulnerabilities Appendix IV: Latency and Internet Quality Appendix V: Data on IXPs and Local Data Centers Bibliography 3 Executive Summary This document analyzes the resiliency and connectivity of the Internet in Administrative Region E (Asia and Australasia) of the Internet Telecommunications Union (ITU). We consider how to reduce the widespread outages caused by cable faults in natural disasters such as the 2006 earthquake and the 2011 typhoon. To improve the resiliency for the network, we advocate adding Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) to mitigate existing issues with submarine cables, encourage colocation of data centers, reduce latency, and decrease bandwidth costs, among other benefits. In particular, we identify two countries - India and Bangladesh - where investment in IXPs and policies to encourage competition among regional ISPs can have a huge impact on the connectivity and resiliency of the network in addition to the economic and efficiency benefits IXPs confer. The first half of the paper presents a security and vulnerability based motivation for IXPs - namely the outages surrounding submarine cable failures and analyzes the local and large-scale benefits of increased numbers of IXPs and data centers. Initially, we examine the growth and development of the Internet and issues with inefficient routing. We show these vulnerabilities necessitate the building of more robust local networks within countries by utilizing IXPs. Then, we demonstrate that the construction of IXPs can alleviate resiliency concerns surrounding the submarine cable network. The second half of the paper reviews the economic and efficiency benefits of IXPs and presents policies that will encourage investment and development of IXPs. To illustrate these policies, we identify two major types of countries that can benefit from policies to encourage the growth of IXPs. The first are fast growing nations that have both the capital and market for telecom investment, but whose infrastructure is not yet completed or unified - for example India and China. The second category are nations that have less capital and little infrastructure - for example Bangladesh. We then use the case studies of India and Bangladesh to provide the following recommendations: India: Link the existing government infrastructure by IXPs-equivalents to the smaller, private ISPs in order to create a robust backbone for domestic Internet traffic and networks. Bangladesh: Limit the control of the existing for-profit monopoly to the only submarine cable by adding a public IXP to the new submarine cable expected to be finished in 2014 in order to provide reliable competitive access to the international Internet framework and encourage further domestic competition. Following the policy recommendations, we analyze case studies illustrating the success of IXP implementation in Kenya, Singapore and Brazil. Subsequently, we present detailed analyses of our recommendations to study feasibility and highlight implementation challenges. We use this analysis to show that the ITU should promote the development of IXPs in Administrative Region E beginning with the countries of India and Bangladesh. 4 1. Historical Background 1.1 Scale and Inefficient Routing Problems The Internet currently functions as a medium for spreading ideas and information. It has unparalleled depth and breadth as a tool for spreading pluralism and encouraging the marketplace of ideas. As the amount of data trafficked through the Internet has grown exponentially over the last decade and shows no sign of slowing down, the need for a robust and efficient network system has grown increasingly important. Unfortunately, the design of Internet infrastructure not evolved nearly as quickly. Due to the fact that physical facilities are governed by a number of different stakeholders, ranging from commercial corporations to government agencies, collaboration efforts to improve the existing international network infrastructure have been less than successful. This leads outdated facilities and inefficient traffic routes. As more and more bottlenecks occur on the network, data transfers experience larger delays, which ultimately hinders the dissemination of information over the Internet, and undermines the fundamental principle upon which the Internet was built. In this section, we first describe an inefficient routing phenomenon caused by outdated infrastructures, and explore methods to mitigate the issue. 1.2 Inefficient Routing Phenomenon Early on in the evolution of the Internet, there was a general lack of domestic network infrastructure in most countries. Since a majority of the network traffic is international, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) did not see a need to invest in construction of local connectivity. This scarcity of physical infrastructure imposed significant costs on domestic connections between ISPs, in particular where domestic connectivity is not very competitive (and therefore expensive). As most ISPs purchase international transit in order to provide global connectivity anyway, some find it convenient to include domestic traffic in these links, particularly in countries where access to domestic infrastructure is limited and prices are high. As a result, domestic traffic, such as an email between neighbors, may leave the country in order to be exchanged - a process sometimes known as tromboning. This process is detailed in the figure below, in which each of the ISPs in Country A uses international transit to exchange traffic with one another, as well as to exchange traffic with foreign ISPs and content providers. However, there are performance and cost issues with this method, as more and more local traffic has to be transmitted across countries before coming back to the same region. 5 Figure 6: Illustration of Tromboning, where Domestic Traffic Uses International Transit Lines While tromboning does not pose a problem when there is little domestic traffic, it is beginning to cause great inefficiencies in networks today. As the Internet market penetration grows and more homes are equipped with broadband connections, there has been a clear incline in the amount of domestic data transfers. Evidently, it would be significantly efficient if local communication such as emails between neighbor can be exchanged locally without leaving the country, unlike the illustration in Figure 6. Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) can be introduced to serve this purpose. 1.3 Background on Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) In the real world, IXPs are simply physical points that can be a switch in a basement, or a large network spanning multiple data centers, with elaborate power backup and cooling systems. These points facilitate local information exchange between different ISPs’ networks. Figure 7 below provides a simple illustration of this new setup. 6 Figure 7: Illustration of Local Data Exchange using IXPs As the figure above demonstrates, IXPs provide a point of local exchange that circumvents the process of tromboning - an email between neighbors can be simply transferred over two different ISP networks via an IXP. Not only does this data transfer take less time than internationally routing the traffic, it also reduces the traffic burden on international transit lines. In addition, there are extra performance and economic benefits associated with IXPs that will be explored in detail later in our policy recommendation section. Finally, we highlight the issue of IXP governance - how IXPs are typically implemented and administered. It is important to note that IXPs do not have significant impacts on existing network infrastructure, as they do not increase the burden domestically. Given that the traffic was already present in the first place - IXPs simply reroute
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INTERNET ADDRESSING: MEASURING DEPLOYMENT of Ipv6
    INTERNET ADDRESSING: MEASURING DEPLOYMENT OF IPv6 APRIL 2010 2 FOREWORD FOREWORD This report provides an overview of several indicators and data sets for measuring IPv6 deployment. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset of the OECD‟s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. The Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy (CISP) recommended, at its meeting in December 2009, forwarding the document to the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) for declassification. The ICCP Committee agreed to make the document publicly available in March 2010. Experts from the Internet Technical Advisory Committee to the ICCP Committee (ITAC) and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC) have provided comments, suggestions, and contributed significantly to the data in this report. Special thanks are to be given to Geoff Huston from APNIC and Leo Vegoda from ICANN on behalf of ITAC/the NRO, Patrick Grossetete from ArchRock, Martin Levy from Hurricane Electric, Google and the IPv6 Forum for providing data, analysis and comments for this report. This report was originally issued under the code DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2009)17/FINAL. Issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD member countries. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basic Economics of Internet Infrastructure
    Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 34, Number 2—Spring 2020—Pages 192–214 The Basic Economics of Internet Infrastructure Shane Greenstein his internet barely existed in a commercial sense 25 years ago. In the mid- 1990s, when the data packets travelled to users over dial-up, the main internet T traffic consisted of email, file transfer, and a few web applications. For such content, users typically could tolerate delays. Of course, the internet today is a vast and interconnected system of software applications and computing devices, which society uses to exchange information and services to support business, shopping, and leisure. Not only does data traffic for streaming, video, and gaming applications comprise the majority of traffic for internet service providers and reach users primarily through broadband lines, but typically those users would not tolerate delays in these applica- tions (for usage statistics, see Nevo, Turner, and Williams 2016; McManus et al. 2018; Huston 2017). In recent years, the rise of smartphones and Wi-Fi access has supported growth of an enormous range of new businesses in the “sharing economy” (like, Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb), in mobile information services (like, social media, ticketing, and messaging), and in many other applications. More than 80 percent of US households own at least one smartphone, rising from virtually zero in 2007 (available at the Pew Research Center 2019 Mobile Fact Sheet). More than 86 percent of homes with access to broadband internet employ some form of Wi-Fi for accessing applications (Internet and Television Association 2018). It seems likely that standard procedures for GDP accounting underestimate the output of the internet, including the output affiliated with “free” goods and the restructuring of economic activity wrought by changes in the composition of firms who use advertising (for discussion, see Nakamura, Samuels, and Soloveichik ■ Shane Greenstein is the Martin Marshall Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Traffic Exchange: Market Developments and Policy Challenges”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: Weller, D. and B. Woodcock (2013-01-29), “Internet Traffic Exchange: Market Developments and Policy Challenges”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 207, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k918gpt130q-en OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 207 Internet Traffic Exchange MARKET DEVELOPMENTS AND POLICY CHALLENGES Dennis Weller, Bill Woodcock Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2011)2/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 29-Jan-2013 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2011)2/FINAL Cancels & replaces the same document of 17 October 2012 Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy INTERNET TRAFFIC EXCHANGE MARKET DEVELOPMENTS AND POLICY CHALLENGES English - Or. English JT03333716 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2011)2/FINAL FOREWORD In June 2011, this report was presented to the Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy (CISP) and was recommended to be made public by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) at its meeting in October 2011. The report was prepared by Dennis Weller of Navigant Economics and Bill Woodcock of Packet Clearing House. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary General of the OECD. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Effects of Internet Exchange Points on Fixed
    1 The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) serves as the United Nations’ regional hub promoting cooperation among countries to achieve inclusive and sustainable development. The largest regional intergovernmental platform with 53 member States and 9 associate members, ESCAP has emerged as a strong regional think tank offering countries sound analytical products that shed insight into the evolving economic, social and environmental dynamics of the region. The Commission’s strategic focus is to deliver on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which it does by reinforcing and deepening regional cooperation and integration to advance connectivity, financial cooperation and market integration. ESCAP’s research and analysis coupled with its policy advisory services, capacity building and technical assistance to governments aim to support countries’ sustainable and inclusive development ambitions. The shaded areas of the map indicate ESCAP members and associate members. Disclaimer: The Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway (AP-IS) Working Papers provide policy-relevant analysis on regional trends and challenges in support of the development of the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway (AP-IS) and inclusive development. The findings should not be reported as representing the views of the United Nations. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. This working paper has been issued without formal editing, and the designations employed and material presented do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Points of Control As Global Governance Laura Denardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO
    INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS PAPER NO. 2 — AUGUST 2013 Internet Points of Control as Global Governance Laura DeNardis Copyright © 2013 by The Centre for International Governance Innovation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Operating Board of Directors or International Board of Governors. This work was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www. cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. Cover and page design by Steve Cross. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CIGI gratefully acknowledges the support of the Copyright Collective of Canada. CONTENTS About the Author 1 About Organized Chaos: Reimagining the Internet Project 2 Acronyms 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 Global Struggles Over Control of CIRS 5 Governance via Internet Technical Standards 8 Routing and Interconnection Governance 10 Emerging International Governance Themes 12 Works Cited 14 About CIGI 15 INTERNET GOVERNANCE PAPERS INTERNET POINTS OF CONTROL AS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laura DeNardis Laura DeNardis, CIGI senior fellow, is an Internet governance scholar and professor in the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC. Her books include The Global War for Internet Governance (forthcoming 2014), Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability (2011), Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance (2009) and Information Technology in Theory (2007, with Pelin Aksoy).
    [Show full text]
  • Cracks in the Internet's Foundation. the Future of the Internet's
    SWP Research Paper Daniel Voelsen Cracks in the Internet’s Foundation The Future of the Internet’s Infrastructure and Global Internet Governance Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs SWP Research Paper 14 November 2019, Berlin Abstract The foundation of the Internet is showing cracks. Central elements of the Internet’s infrastructure are the result of decisions made decades ago. Since then, however, the technical context has changed dramatically, as has the political significance of the Internet. Three conflicts over the future development of the Internet infrastructure are particularly important for German policy-makers. The first is about secu- rity and privacy in the Internet’s addressing system, the so-called Domain Name System (DNS). Second, a conflict is building up over the security of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) – the protocol used to coordinate data traffic on the Internet. Third, the security and availability of submarine cables, which form the physical backbone of the global Internet, are proving in- creasingly problematic. If these conflicts remain unresolved, while at the same time the demands on the Internet continue to rise worldwide, the consequences for security, privacy, and economic development will be increasingly negative. Moreover, the Internet is in danger of being split, all the way to the infrastructure level. This multifaceted field of conflict demands a clear strategic approach from German policy-makers. In accordance with their own digital policy demands, they should at the same time pursue the goal of worldwide inter- operability and address the issues described within a European framework. The challenge here is to shape the further development of the Internet infra- structure in Europe in such a way that it complements – and does not fur- ther jeopardise – the shared global foundation of the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Exchange Point Assignment Request Form RIPE NCC
    Internet Exchange Point Assignment Request Form RIPE NCC Document ID: ripe-565 Date: October 2012 ------------------------8<Cut Here>8---------------------- % Internet Exchange Point Assignment Request Form % RIPE NCC members (LIRs) and Direct Assignment Users can use this % form to request an IPv4/IPv6 Assignment for an Internet Exchange % Point (IXP). Please see ripe-565 for instructions on how to % complete this form. % % Please note that the End User should have a signed "End User % Assignment Agreement" with either the sponsoring LIR % or the RIPE NCC. #[GENERAL INFORMATION]# request-type: ixp-assign form-version: 1.0 % Please add your RegID. x-ncc-regid: #[OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATION]# % Is this request being sent by a sponsoring LIR on behalf of an End % User? (Yes/No) end-user-of-sponsoring-lir: % If yes, please confirm that the "End User Assignment Agreement" % contains all of the elements listed in paragraph 2.0 of "Contractual % Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE % NCC Service Region". (Yes/No) confirmation: % Which IXP will use the requested address space? org-description: #[OVERVIEW OF THE USER]# % Who is the contact person for this IXP? Name: Organisation: Country: Phone: Email: #[EXISTING ADDRESS SPACE USAGE]# % If the IXP has any IPv4 ranges(s) for their peering LAN, list them % below. If any such space is being returned, then the return date % should be specified. subnet-ipv4: % If the IXP has any IPv6 assignments, list them below. subnet-ipv6: % The next two sections (IPv4 and IPv6) will give us an overview of % the detailed usage of the resources. Please fill in only the % relevant section as per the resource being requested and remove the % section that is not applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief
    Policy Brief Developing E-commerce in CAREC Countries: Current State and Challenges in Infrastructure Development May 2021 Disclaimer The CAREC Institute (CI) working paper and policy brief series is a forum for stimulating discussion and eliciting feedback on ongoing and recently completed projects and workshops undertaken by CI staff, consultants or resource persons. The series deals with key economic and development issues, particularly those facing the CAREC region, as well as conceptual, analytical, or methodological issues relating to project/program economic analysis, and statistical data and measurement. This policy brief is excerpted from the project titled Framework of E-commerce Development in CAREC countries: Focus on Infrastructure Development. The project was supported and financed by ADB. This policy brief is authored by Mr Michael Minges, Consultant, along with Ms Mera, CI National Consultant. The project was conceived and led by Dr Tumurpurev Dulambazar, Senior Research Specialist, and co-led by Dr Qaisar Abbas, Chief of Research Division at the CI. Dr Ghulam Samad, Senior Research Officer of the CI, provided academic support. Dr Iskandar Abdullaev, Deputy Director Two of the CI, provided the overall guidance. Colleagues from ADB have provided valuable commentary and suggestions on the policy brief and report, including Ms Dorothea Lazaro, Regional Cooperation Specialist, East Asia Department ADB, and Ms Loreli de Dios, Consultant (Economist), East Asia Department, ADB. The views expressed in this policy brief are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the CI, its funding entities, or its governing council. The CI does not guarantee accuracy of the data included in this policy brief and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of its use.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Exchange Tour of the World
    Internet Exchange tour of the World Version 2.0 Gaurab Raj Upadhaya NPIX / PCH / APNIC SIG-IX / APIX What is an Internet eXchange Point (IXP) ? • Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) are the most critical part of the Internet’s Infrastructure. It is the meeting point where ISPs interconnect with one another. With out IXPs, there would be no Internet. Interconnecting with other networks is the essence of the Internet. ISPs must interconnect with other networks to provide Internet services. • Private and Bi-Lateral Peering are considered to be a type of IXP. Background • The Internet is a decentralized network of autonomous commercial interests • Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operate by exchanging traffic at their borders, propagating data from its source to its destination • This exchange can be settlement-free (“Peering”) or paid (“Transit”) Why This is Important • If you have no domestic Internet exchange facility, your domestic ISPs must purchase transit from foreign ISPs • The large foreign ISPs who sell transit are American, Japanese, and British • This is an expensive and unnecessary exportation of capital to developed nations at the expense of your domestic Internet industry Second-Order Benefits of Domestic Exchange • A strong domestic Internet industry creates high-paying knowledge-worker jobs • Domestic traffic exchange reduces the importation of Foreign content and cultural values, in favor of domestic content authoring and publishing A Brief History of Internet Exchanges First Exchanges • Metropolitan Area Ethernet Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • INEX What Is an IXP?
    1 What is an IXP? Beirut, March 2017 Nick Hilliard Chief Technical Officer Internet Neutral Exchange Association Company Limited by Guarantee 2 Just a Switching Platform 3 Switch 3 Switch Switch 3 Switch Switch Switch 4 80G clonshaugh ballycoolin 80G 80G 80G citywest 80G kilcarbery hume ave 30G 30G lavery ave 5 What is an IXP? IXPs - the IX-F Definition • An Internet Exchange Point (IXP) is a network facility that enables the interconnection and exchange of Internet traffic between more than two independent Autonomous Systems. • An IXP provides interconnection only for Autonomous Systems. • An IXP does not require the Internet traffic passing between any pair of participating Autonomous Systems to pass through any third Autonomous System, nor does it alter or otherwise interfere with such traffic. 6 What is an IXP? IXPs and IP connectivity • Generally speaking, three types of IP connectivity: • Private Network Interconnections (PI or PNI) • Internet eXchange Point (IXP) • Regular IP Transit (IPT) 6 What is an IXP? IXPs and IP connectivity • Generally speaking, three types of IP connectivity: • Private Network Interconnections (PI or PNI) • Internet eXchange Point (IXP) • Regular IP Transit (IPT) • “Quality” measured by: • latency • available bandwith • “control” - more recently we also consider mitigation against DDoS. 6 What is an IXP? IXPs and IP connectivity • Generally speaking, three types of IP connectivity: • Private Network Interconnections (PI or PNI) • Internet eXchange Point (IXP) • Regular IP Transit (IPT) Quality Improvement
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Exchange Points Around the World
    Internet Exchange tour of the World" Version 2.0" Gaurab Raj Upadhaya " Limelight Networks" NPIX / APIX " What is an Internet eXchange Point (IXP) ?! •" Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) are the most critical part of the Internet’s Infrastructure. It is the meeting point where ISPs interconnect with one another. With out IXPs, there would be no Internet. Interconnecting with other networks is the essence of the Internet. ISPs must interconnect with other networks to provide Internet services. •" Private and Bi-Lateral Peering are considered to be a type of IXP. Background" •" The Internet is a decentralized network of autonomous commercial interests! •" Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operate by exchanging traffic at their borders, propagating data from its source to its destination! •" This exchange can be settlement-free (“Peering”) or paid (“Transit”)! Why This is Important" •" If you have no domestic Internet exchange facility, your domestic ISPs must purchase transit from foreign ISPs! •" The large foreign ISPs who sell transit are American, Japanese, and British! •" This is an expensive and unnecessary exportation of capital to developed nations at the expense of your domestic Internet industry! Second-Order Benefits of Domestic Exchange" •" A strong domestic Internet industry creates high-paying knowledge-worker jobs! •" Domestic traffic exchange reduces the importation of Foreign content and cultural values, in favor of domestic content authoring and publishing! A Brief History of! Internet Exchanges" First Exchanges" •" Metropolitan
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Survey of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements
    P a c k e t C l e a r i n g H o u s e 5 7 2 B R u g e r S t r e e t , B o x 2 9 9 2 0 T h e P r e s i d i o o f S a n F r a n c i s c o S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 2 9 - 0 9 2 0 U S A + 1 4 1 5 8 3 1 3 1 0 0 m a i n + 1 4 1 5 8 3 1 3 1 0 1 f a x 2016 Survey of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements Bill Woodcock Marco Frigino Packet Clearing House November 21, 2016 Introduction The Internet, or network of networks, consists of 7,557 Internet Service Provider (ISP) or carrier networks, which are interconnected in a sparse mesh.1 Each of the interconnecting links takes one of two forms: transit or peering. Transit agreements are commercial contracts in which, typically, a customer pays a service provider for access to the Internet; these agreements are most prevalent at the edges of the Internet, where the topology consists primarily of singly connected “leaf” networks that are principally concerned with the delivery of their own traffic. Transit agreements have been widely studied and are not the subject of this report. Peering agreements – the value-creation engine of the Internet – are the carrier interconnection agreements that allow carriers to exchange traffic bound for one another’s customers; they are most common in the core of the Internet, where the topology consists of densely interconnected networks that are principally concerned with the carriage of traffic on behalf of the networks which are their customers.
    [Show full text]