1 / 14

Internet Peering in the UK

Internet Peering in the UK. Keith Mitchell keith@linx.net Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange 13th May 1998. Settlement. Voice Telephony money flows from traffic/call originator to recipient’s carrier Internet wholesale generally as above

grams
Download Presentation

Internet Peering in the UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Internet Peering in the UK Keith Mitchell keith@linx.net Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange 13th May 1998

  2. Settlement • Voice Telephony • money flows from traffic/call originator to recipient’s carrier • Internet • wholesale generally as above • peering interconnection has no money flow

  3. Reasons for non-Settlement Peering • Volume-based accounting for datagram traffic resource intensive • Revenue flow from small players to large can: • create barrier to entry • accelerate consolidation • LINX MoU rule • Time for change ?

  4. UK State of Play • Most peering via LINX • majority of members do peer • disputes unusual • Some smaller players via 2 regional exchanges • Limited (~5) private bi-lateral peerings • Lots of settlement-based bi-lateral wholesale/transit

  5. Should ISPs setPeering Policy ? • In general, YES • key autonomy issue for ISP businesses • BUT: • may need to regulate players with significant market share • ideally take steps to avoid need to do this

  6. LINX Background • LINX is UK national Internet Exchange Point • Represents 47 largest UK ISPs • Tries to encourage open peering and competition between ISPs • Promotes self-regulation (e.g IWF), but is not “regulator” • Channel of communication between ISPs and regulators

  7. LINX Peering Environment • Restricted but published & well-defined membership criteria • Minimum of interference in member peering autonomy • Peering agreements private matter between members • Incentives to peer • Disincentives to not peer

  8. LINX Peering Practice (1) • Members must peer with >=20% of other members: • to acquire voting rights • to remain member after 3 months • may reduce and/or replace above “stick” with “carrot(s)”

  9. LINX Peering Practice (2) • Members must: • publish peering contacts • respond to peering requests within 2 days • Peering matrix on web page converts routing registry data into end-user friendly format • end-user consumer pressure

  10. LINX Peering Practice (3) • Complaints can be referred to LINX Chair • Tiered peering used by some and works well: • exchange of subset of customer routes/territory • multiple ASes/routing policies • or bandwidth limited

  11. Good Peering Practice • “Self-regulatory” measures • Peering policies should be: • registered • in public domain • consistently & fairly implemented • stable

  12. Possible Peering Incentives • Additional membership status • Additional facilities • e.g. switch ports • access to VA services • Membership discounts

  13. Conclusions (1) • Open peering can promote competition • Closed bi-lateral exchange can inhibit it • Open peering arbiter can facilitate competition: • as L1/L2 exchange • as organisational environment

  14. Conclusions (2) • Peering in UK at LINX is working better than most other exchanges in other countries • Good model, though room for development • Market will determine when settlement or not is best • Imposition of settlement or not would distort UK wrt global market

More Related