Policies for Peering and Internet Exchanges AFIX Technical Workshop Session 8.

Policies for Peering and Internet Exchanges

AFIX Technical WorkshopSession 8

AFIX Technical Workshop: Session 8

Recap of key terms Transit: One ISP provides (usually

sells) access to all destinations in its routing table

Peering: ISPs reciprocally provide access to each other’s customers


Transit

Peering

Peering vs Transit

Peering

Peering


Internet Exchange Points Three or more peering partners IXP

should be considered Platforms: Layer 2 or Layer 3 Ownership

Commercial Non Profit Governmental


Policy influences on IXPs IXPs are affected by two kinds of policy:

Government policy Business and technical policies: IXP and member ISPs

Government policy is simple: none is best! In the real world, two extremes of intervention:

Governments have shut down IXPs Government have forced peering

Both approaches are failures. Government’s ideal role is to encourage, provide

information, support, facilitate.


IXP business & technical policy Key areas to be negotiated between

members Must be agreed BEFORE IXP is set up

to ensure buy-in Business and technical decisions

frequently overlap – technical choices are made for business reasons.


Key business decisions Location Ownership Operator: who runs it? Do you provide additional services eg

co-location? Form of business (for profit or not?) Funding and pricing: Flat fee, traffic

fee, some other?


Commercial Option IXP built and operated by a telco or

co-location provider Profit comes from the services that

support the IXP: Co-location space Telecommunications services, etc.

MAE, PacBell NAP, Equinix, AboveNet


Non-Profit Option A collective effort by several ISPs Incorporate as a non-profit in order to

operate the IXP Referred as the “club” IXP model LINX, JINX, KIXP, APE (NZ)


Government Option To enhance the connectivity of

government and educational institutions Federal Internet eXchanges (FIXs):

interconnected US govt networks Internet2’s GigaPOPs: Universities StarTap: the R&D Networks Private sector benefit is incidental, if at all


Alternative forms Network Service Providers:

Backbone carriers mainly selling transit service

Use the term IX as a marketing tool Example: SAIX, EIX, ..etc

National Gateways: Mainly in regulated markets Local and international traffic are

separated domestically


Best Practices IXP operated by a neutral party who

is not an ISP (to ensure fairness and neutrality)

Robust and secure fashion Located in areas of high density of

Internet market space Able to scale in size Fiscally sound and stable


Key technical decisions Multilateral (all peer with all – no

choice) Bilateral (any peer with any – ISPs can

choose) Hybrid? Interconnect policy


Typical agreements IXP

Advertise no transit routes Peering

Respond to queries in 24hrs Collaborate on tracking and dealing with abuse

originating from own network Advertise all its customer routes to the other parties Accept all routes as agreed and advertised by the other

parties Exchange traffic between its customers and customers of

other parties Register customers in a whois searchable database or

establish a routing registry


Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Ensure that IXP won’t be competing

with its own members (e.g. connecting customers at the IXP)

Ensure smooth and stable operation Preserve the business reputation of

the IXP and member ISPs Provide reasonable privacy protection

to members


AUP non-compete terms Entry qualifications

Who is to connect to the IXP Who is NOT to connect to the IXP Minimum peering requirements

Exchanging traffic Bi-lateral agreements Multi-lateral agreements Settlement of peering charges


Additional AUP issues Privacy – AUP should cover:

Monitoring of operational data Publication of operational data Disclosure of information to relevant authorities Exceptions

Content – AUP should cover: Conformance to laws regarding content hosted Prevention of spam, etc Protecting network stability and integrity Cooperation in achieving those objectives


Traffic Exchange Strategy Transit through a global

backbone Public Peering at exchange

Points whenever possible Migrate higher-volume

connections to private peering Negotiate peering with global

backbones


Conclusion Peering is a complement to transit – only top-tier

ISPs can rely solely on peering for coverage. Companies will peer when they perceive equal

benefit. Peering agreements are the result of commercial

negotiations. Each ISP decides whether, how, and where to

peer by weighing the benefits and costs of entering into a particular interconnection agreement.


Policy Negotiation: Exercise Divide into three groups and read through the

following IXP policies: Group A: JINX (South Africa) Group B: Moz-IX (Mozambique) Group C: KIXP (Kenya)

How has each of these IXPs resolved the issues covered during this presentation?

Would this policy, or some elements of it, be appropriate for your local conditions?

What would be the most appropriate policy or set of policies for your local conditions?


Summary of policy issues Location Ownership and form Governance Additional services Pricing Interconnection policy Acceptable use

Policies for Peering and Internet Exchanges AFIX Technical Workshop Session 8.

Documents