Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


BDFL - Memuneh
60603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11535

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Topic # 60106 19-Apr-2010 15:56
Send private message


FX Networks and Telecom Wholesale today confirmed their agreement for the exchange of local internet traffic at 19 of Telecom’s points of interconnection around the country. The agreement is the culmination of years of effort by Telecom, FX Networks and other industry players, to lay the groundwork for the most efficient routing of New Zealand’s growing volumes of Internet traffic.

Local internet interconnection, or peering, is important as it provides more efficient routing of national traffic, allowing traffic to be exchanged on a local or regional basis rather than transported back and forth throughout the country to be exchanged in Auckland.  With the Government’s $1.5bn ‘Ultra Fast Broadband’ and $300m ‘Rural Broadband' initiatives both on the horizon, the agreement paves the way for a whole new range of competitive broadband packages to be developed by ISPs and other service providers.

Matt Crockett, CEO for Telecom Wholesale and International, said: “Initiatives like the Government’s Ultra Fast Broadband plan will increasingly bring workable network interconnection models into the spotlight. We’ve been delighted with what we and FX Networks have achieved so far and we’re looking forward to working with them, and the rest of the industry, as we continue to build our technical competences and experience base.”

FX Network's Jamie Baddeley said "The agreement means that the Government's investment of $1.8bn in urban and rural broadband will now be able to run local content in a fast and efficient manner. This is a big step in New Zealand's digital transformation that will revolutionise many aspects of society including health, education, commerce and entertainment”.

Senior industry consultant  Dr Murray Milner said: “This is a very positive outcome with the industry tackling a major issue that is fundamental to the success of the current fibre roll-outs. Local peering means that internet backbones will not be clogged up with local traffic and we will see smart uses of the capability in areas like healthcare where digital X-rays can be shared simultaneously in full definition."

Ernie Newman, CEO of TUANZ said: "Peering has been on the table for a number of years as one of those 'too hard' issues, after some carriers 'depeered' from the earlier system a few years ago. It was the users who bore the brunt of that with traffic 'tromboning' to Auckland when it didn't need to, or worse to the USA. I'm delighted to see industry players resolving this issue without the need for regulation or government intervention and users will benefit from better performance and lower charges.  What’s emerging is the national digital architecture that TUANZ has been calling for."

One of the biggest challenges facing the future of the government's $1.8bn investment in improved urban and rural broadband is an issue which sounds technical but actually has a major impact on both the quality of New Zealanders broadband and what they pay for it!

The issue is known by two different names 'interconnect' or 'peering' depending on whether you come from the established telecommunications industry or the newer world of the Internet. Put simply it is about how traffic is routed between different networks and what costs if any should be incurred.

In the past when New Zealand only had one telecommunications network this was never an issue but with the rise of the internet over the last two decades and its underlying model of a network of networks a new approach was needed that is fair for users and network operators.

With today’s announcement a key building block for the new road rules is put in place. Traffic on New Zealand's two main Internet backbones will now be 'exchanged' at 19 of Telecom's 29 local peering points. That number will increase as the FX Network expands further around the country.

"The demand on New Zealand's fibre optic infrastructure is going to come from a lot more than just email and web browsing, many activities are starting to generate large files or the need to stream large quantities of data," says FX Network's Jamie Baddeley, "Today's announcement means this traffic will be routed as locally as possible which will avoid unnecessary use of expensive international links and reduce congestion on national backhaul networks. So New Zealand broadband users can look forward to better performance, potentially lower charges and even their current 'data caps' extending further.

Mr Baddeley added: “I think many ISPs are going to have to rethink how they charge for traffic and there will now be competitive pressure to separate international traffic from local usage and charge accordingly.”

Telecom Wholesale's Matt Crockett added: "This is a natural outcome of the investment Telecom has made in building our next generation all IP network and it lets us bring advanced capabilities to all our wholesale customers where ever they are located or where ever they need to provide customers with services."

"Telecom has 29 exchanges now capable of peering locally and has been working with FX Networks to get this into the market."  Mr Crockett added, "my team have worked closely with FX Networks to get this right;  it’s a real sign of how we can operate a genuine wholesale market to everyone’s benefit."




View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
26490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6037

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 320301 19-Apr-2010 16:37
Send private message

I'd love to see an official reponse from TelstraClear on this matter.



BDFL - Memuneh
60603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11535

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 320303 19-Apr-2010 16:40
Send private message

TelstraClear won't say anything regarding this specific deal. But if you mean it as in TelstraClear doing something similar... I would say sit and wait.




I fix stuff!
1650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 316

Trusted
Vocus
Subscriber

  Reply # 320327 19-Apr-2010 17:01
Send private message

Most ISP's can "Peer" with Telecom. FX are the only ones who have bothered to make a song and dance about it.

Telecom have opened many peering points at their exchanges. Its just up to the ISP to build to those points.




BDFL - Memuneh
60603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11535

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 320339 19-Apr-2010 17:13
Send private message

Correct. But the "song and dance" is because some ISPs don't do it.

Some say Telecom should peer at Citylink sponsored exchanges. From what I've heard it seems many ISPs try to do the same just to get a national haul for free.

That's what the biggest players - Telecom New Zealand and TelstraClear - say is the biggest reason they don't peer at those points. Basically they would be giving national traffic for free, not only local.





8025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 320347 19-Apr-2010 17:21
Send private message

Who pays is the grey area, it's a matter of market power.

Telecom (via Global Gateway) pay to peer/interconnect in the US so that Telecom's paying users have access to US servers etc...

Yet locally they have market power they can leverage so that hosts have to pay Telecom for interconnction.

You can kind of see both sides.

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 320363 19-Apr-2010 17:59
Send private message

freitasm: That's what the biggest players - Telecom New Zealand and TelstraClear - say is the biggest reason they don't peer at those points. Basically they would be giving national traffic for free, not only local.

That s such a pointless argument unfortunately.

If I am content provider "T" located in city "W", and ISP "X" has a lot of customers who want to visit my site, why should I not hand that traffic off to ISP "X" at a location which is convenient for me?  Why should I pay to haul that traffic to, e.g., Greymouth? ISP "X" also has a POP in city "W", and conveniently both of us have connectivity to IXP "C".

The argument put forwards by TCL and TNZ is very flawed.  There are others they could use that have more validity, but not this one.



BDFL - Memuneh
60603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11535

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 320368 19-Apr-2010 18:06
Send private message

I think you got things a bit tangled there. Telecom and TelstraClear are most consuming content, not creating content.

The problem is that other ISPs are also consuming content. And some ISPs were using peering (so I am told) just to have their national traffic carried away to another place, where the content is - not necessarily on the backhaul's owne's network.





637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 320372 19-Apr-2010 18:14
Send private message

freitasm: I think you got things a bit tangled there. Telecom and TelstraClear are most consuming content, not creating content.

I don't see any tangling.  It should be pretty clear - especially given the letters I rather deliberately selected.

freitasm: The problem is that other ISPs are also consuming content. And some ISPs were using peering (so I am told) just to have their national traffic carried away to another place, where the content is - not necessarily on the backhaul's owne's network.

Sure, everyone consumes, although TNZ and TCL are net-sinks vs. net-sources, relative to most other ISPs since there are very few content sources on TNZ/TCL that are interesting to other mid-size/large ISPs.

Operators "borrowing" national transport from TNZ and TCL is unethical and most likely illegal (theft-of-service) but they can relatively easily implement configuration at their peering routers that would prevent this.  This is a more valid argument than the "it's unfair for us to transport bits [our users requested] over our network from [content originators who have handed it to us]".

There is of course the alternate scenario which is an operator has purchased a low-cost domestic-only transit circuit from TCL or TNZ for a remote POP, and is tunneling over this circuit to the remote POP, via handoff at an IXP.  Of course they are actually purchasing a circuit for this so I am not sure I regard it as unethical and definitely not illegal.  And it might just indicate to the incumbent transport providers that their transit vs. transport pricing models are screwed.

2274 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 320486 19-Apr-2010 23:09
Send private message

If Telecom and Telstraclear were owned and run by their operations team I'm sure things would be run very differently. Unfortunately these large companies business decisions are made by bean counters and in part in the best interest of their shareholders so the best solution often conflicts with the solution which drives the most revenue.

Other ISPs have been peering with Telecom and or Telstraclear directly for years, paying top dollar for national transit for their users and for Telecom / Telstraclear users to access their networks. These ISPs just would not have been peering at 19 POPs as it's largely unnecessary unless you have a very good spread of high usage customers.


3395 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

  Reply # 321031 20-Apr-2010 22:25
Send private message

The 29 peering points are just a cop out for Telecom wanting the content provider to pay to provide the content to Telecom's customers. THe current WIX/APE system works great as the content provider just needs to get access to the exchange where all ISPs can openly access it.

Why should I pay to provide Telecom's a service they ultimately are paying Telecom to provide. Don't they get it?

I can see what will happen - instead of ISPs paying Telecom to connect to them, FX will just charge a cheaper rate which they will pick instead.





26490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6037

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 321083 21-Apr-2010 06:47
Send private message

Zeon: The 29 peering points are just a cop out for Telecom wanting the content provider to pay to provide the content to Telecom's customers. THe current WIX/APE system works great as the content provider just needs to get access to the exchange where all ISPs can openly access it.

Why should I pay to provide Telecom's a service they ultimately are paying Telecom to provide. Don't they get it?

I can see what will happen - instead of ISPs paying Telecom to connect to them, FX will just charge a cheaper rate which they will pick instead.


One could just as easily turn that argument around and ask why WIX/AIK should be the point of peering for all data. Is the top of the Sky tower really the most logical place for ISP peering? Or a Telecom exchange such as Mayoral Drive where virtually all ISP's are routing data anyway?

Surely interconnecting traffic at Telecom's 29 peering points which delivers far more geographic coverage is also a step in the right direction delivering peering much closer to the end user?

3395 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 397

Trusted

  Reply # 321119 21-Apr-2010 08:50
Send private message

One could just as easily turn that argument around and ask why WIX/AIK should be the point of peering for all data. Is the top of the Sky tower really the most logical place for ISP peering? Or a Telecom exchange such as Mayoral Drive where virtually all ISP's are routing data anyway?

Surely interconnecting traffic at Telecom's 29 peering points which delivers far more geographic coverage is also a step in the right direction delivering peering much closer to the end user?


OK first off, just to confirm - I take it Telecom have a peering point for a physical region which can be interconnected with? If you want to freely exchange data with a Telecom user would you have to be in that region too?

Say for example I'm a small regional ISP and I only can interconnect with Telecom at 2 peering points. Does that mean I can only freely interconnect with Telecom customers within those regions or will I be able to access Telecom customers from other regions too where Telecom will be providing backhaul to the peering point your located at?

If you only connect at a few peering points but can still freely access all of Telecom's customers through those points then I take my arguement back and would say this is a very good idea. I have a feeling however this isn't the case and basically what Telecoma re doing is making the content provider (like ICONZ or Maxnet etc. who host the vast majority of NZ content) pay to deliver traffic from their main hosting data centers to the region where Telecom's customer is who is trying to access the content. So the point is Telecom is charging their customers $20 a GB or whatever and at the same time they are making the content provider pay for the national backhaul.

This could be good for p2p solutions e.g. streaming TV via bittorrent etc. but since most stuff is still server-client, if Telecom won't provide access to other regions unless you peer there then they are just trying to double dip.





281 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 321191 21-Apr-2010 10:04
Send private message

Zeon:
One could just as easily turn that argument around and ask why WIX/AIK should be the point of peering for all data. Is the top of the Sky tower really the most logical place for ISP peering? Or a Telecom exchange such as Mayoral Drive where virtually all ISP's are routing data anyway?

Surely interconnecting traffic at Telecom's 29 peering points which delivers far more geographic coverage is also a step in the right direction delivering peering much closer to the end user?


OK first off, just to confirm - I take it Telecom have a peering point for a physical region which can be interconnected with? If you want to freely exchange data with a Telecom user would you have to be in that region too?

Say for example I'm a small regional ISP and I only can interconnect with Telecom at 2 peering points. Does that mean I can only freely interconnect with Telecom customers within those regions or will I be able to access Telecom customers from other regions too where Telecom will be providing backhaul to the peering point your located at?

If you only connect at a few peering points but can still freely access all of Telecom's customers through those points then I take my arguement back and would say this is a very good idea. I have a feeling however this isn't the case and basically what Telecoma re doing is making the content provider (like ICONZ or Maxnet etc. who host the vast majority of NZ content) pay to deliver traffic from their main hosting data centers to the region where Telecom's customer is who is trying to access the content. So the point is Telecom is charging their customers $20 a GB or whatever and at the same time they are making the content provider pay for the national backhaul.

This could be good for p2p solutions e.g. streaming TV via bittorrent etc. but since most stuff is still server-client, if Telecom won't provide access to other regions unless you peer there then they are just trying to double dip.


The way I see it there are 4 parties involved:

Content Provider - Generates and owns the content
Content Providers Host - Is paid by the Content Provider to make their content available to consumers
-
Residential ISP - Is paid by ISP customer for access to the Internet
ISP Customer - Consumes content

Sometimes the Content Provider choose to host their own material as well, so that can blur the lines a little, but by and large the quality of connectivity to any other networks (be they international or other national networks) is the responsibility of the host and should be part of what they are charging the content provider for.

Likewise, the responsibility for giving a good customer experience and adequate access to the content on other networks (be they national or international) for the ISP Customer is the responsibility of the Residential ISP (or in some cases whoever they buy transit from).

So it works both ways, the problem with the APE/WIX model is that if the Content Provider's Host is local to these points they only carry xGB/s over a few hundred meters, and then expect the Residential ISP to carry that same xGB/s over many hundreds of kilometers (and bear that cost).

The NZ model is skewed by the fact that all the Residential customers are on one network (Telecom Wholesale) and most of the content hosts are on a seperate network which doesn't have the same national reach, so if Telecom peered at APE/WIX they would be bearing the majority of the transit burden. Hopefully the MPOI (Multiple points of Interconnect) model will go someway to fixing this, as FX networks have started to.

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 321344 21-Apr-2010 15:21
Send private message

sbiddle: One could just as easily turn that argument around and ask why WIX/AIK should be the point of peering for all data. Is the top of the Sky tower really the most logical place for ISP peering? Or a Telecom exchange such as Mayoral Drive where virtually all ISP's are routing data anyway?

There are more IXPs in New Zealand than just APE and WIX, although they are the IXPs which exchange the most traffic because that's where most networks are.  The top of the Sky Tower is a red herring as APE is logically and physically available in multiple locations.

I would extremely strongly dispute that "virtually all ISPs are routing data" through Mayoral Drive exchange - and creating such an extreme Single Point of Failure would be ridiculous.

sbiddle: Surely interconnecting traffic at Telecom's 29 peering points which delivers far more geographic coverage is also a step in the right direction delivering peering much closer to the end user?

Not really.  It creates an artificial barrier to entry to reach all end customers, meaning that some will "miss out" by virtue of where they live, and they have no alternative to pay their ISP more to "get there" - and they're already paying their ISP for transit.

To liken this to mobility interconnects and MTR, the traditional Internet peering model has been Bill and Keep based.

It's also interesting to note that Telecom's 29 locations in New Zealand to reach 100% of their customers is far more restrictive than most of the Global Tier 1 network peering policies:

http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/
http://www.corp.att.com/peering/
http://www.qwest.com/legal/peering_na.html

You will notice that those three, for example, do not require 29 interconnects to reach 100% of their network (although Verizon is close with 25), and you will also notice that at each interconnect, they will advertise all prefixes.

How did TNZ and New Zealand suddenly get bigger than the real big global players?  Even more amusingly, TNZ is happy to peer internationally with an open peering policy, but not in NZ.  http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=4648

Edit: Jetlag, forgot to answer your last point.  The point about getting peering much closer to the end user is semi-valid, but again mostly a red herring.  When the data sink is only in Greymouth and the data source is in Auckland or Wellington, why does it make sense for both parties to have to create significant investment into infrastructure to reach that location?  While I agree there is some inherent cost in the "eyeball" operator having to backhaul the traffic from an interconnect location, that should be part of the cost to the eyeball operator.  They have been paid to carry that traffic by their customer.

Looking at what some of those other peering policies say, it would make sense for NZ to have (at most) 3 major interconnect sites - say Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.  Each operator pays their own cost to get there, but should interconnect 100% of their network with operators who are at all 3.

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Trusted

  Reply # 321347 21-Apr-2010 15:29
Send private message

Zeon: OK first off, just to confirm - I take it Telecom have a peering point for a physical region which can be interconnected with? If you want to freely exchange data with a Telecom user would you have to be in that region too?

Say for example I'm a small regional ISP and I only can interconnect with Telecom at 2 peering points. Does that mean I can only freely interconnect with Telecom customers within those regions or will I be able to access Telecom customers from other regions too where Telecom will be providing backhaul to the peering point your located at?

Yes this is more or less correct.  For "settlement free" you would need to interconnect at 29 locations.  However if you interconnect at some locations you can then purchase access to TNZ customers located in other locations.  I have no idea what the cost is for this extra service.

 1 | 2
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07


All or Nothing: New Zealand All Blacks arrives on Amazon Prime Video
Posted 2-Jun-2018 16:21


Innovation Grant, High Tech Awards and new USA office for Kiwi tech company SwipedOn
Posted 1-Jun-2018 20:54


Commerce Commission warns Apple for misleading consumers about their rights
Posted 30-May-2018 13:15


IBM leads Call for Code to use cloud, data, AI, blockchain for natural disaster relief
Posted 25-May-2018 14:12


New FUJIFILM X-T100 aims to do better job than smartphones
Posted 24-May-2018 20:17


Stuff takes 100% ownership of Stuff Fibre
Posted 24-May-2018 19:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.