[lugm.org] My adventures with the Mauritius Internet Exchange Point

Fri Oct 23 11:53:32 UTC 2015

Haha! I'll add my 2 cents.. The MIXP is run by idiots.. I'm not sure if im allowed to disclose the capacity at which each of the participating members is connected at...

2 years ago, I took the initiative to start an IXP taking into consideration the fact that every active ISP is present in the cyber tower 1. Resources etc etc were requested, but I was blocked by one asshole known as Viv, licencing was the issue and the ICTA was even involved.. License has been finally obtained, but unfortunately some people spread words that I'm not of good character...

Ou aider, ou tasser!

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [lugm.org] My adventures with the Mauritius Internet Exchange Point
From: Ashvin Oogorah
To: Loganaden Velvindron ,LUGM Discuss Mailing List
CC:

Hi All,

Just wanted to add my 2cents.
There doesn't seem to be any obligation for ISPs to peer at IXPs.
However, there is clearly benefits for peering at IXPs. For instance, peering directly with the big content providers at LINX is much cheaper than buying transit.
Why is LINX so appealing to ISPs. I guess coz there is quite a number of Content providers and ISPs present there + it is quite easy to peer multilaterally - LINX provides Route Servers to facilitate Multilateral peerings for providers that are willing to participate.

That would probably help answer why there is less motivation for any peerings at MIXP.
What is the rate of traffic between ISPs in Mauritius? From my past experience, between MT and Emtel that was quite low ~10Mbps. That was happening through a private Interconnect peering, nothing to do with MIXP.

I will now get to another potential problem as I see it.
It is the provider's responsibility to have the transport circuit upto the MIXP which is in Ebene.
Let's say MT provides a circuit of 10Mbps. We have all providers [Emtel, Bharat Telecom, DCL, MTML etc] drawing traffic from MT or vice-versa. Generally, we would see more inbound traffic into MIXP from MT as they have more content on their network than other providers - email, web etc. Ever wondered why Bharat Telecom, DCL representatives are so adamant about drawing traffic from MIXP??

What happens if the traffic demand is increasing beyond 10Mbps outbound from MT to the IXP. Demand being greater than capacity, the circuit cannot sustain this demand, drops start to appear and quality of experience gets worse including latency increasing as well. Most likely, customers downloading content would start complaining to their ISPs. E.g Emtel subscribers would start complaining about their connectivity and obviously use an MT connection to compare with the latter being flawless.

Q: Who has the leverage on MT to increase its capacity to MIXP??? Do you think MT would care?
I guess Network Engineers from other ISPs would have a routing solution to that - Prefer MT prefixes from their transit [latency increases, but no drops], keeping their customers happy.

IMHO, the main issue in Mauritius is the level of competition in the Telecommunications/Service Provider sector.  Regulatory framework is not helping either. In Mauritius, if you want fast broadband there are few options but not all of them are using the same access technology - there is no level playing field.

Simply compare Reunion island to Mauritius. They have LLU which opens the incumbent's network and increases competition, eventually customers have wider choice of ISPs for more or less same service. I am a big supporter of LLU and would want to see that in Mauritius. I even queried the previous Minister of ICT on this matter but that was left unanswered.

I agree with Nishal's comments about how to promote an MIXP. There needs to be proper organisation and real drive within the MIXP and its members. I can remember the MIXP meeting happening only once in 2-3 years, discussed about some action points, then no follow-up.

- how we can, as the open-source, non-tech affiliated community help?
Count me in to contribute.

Have a great weekend.

Cheers,
Ashvin

Ashvin

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Loganaden Velvindron <gnukid1 at yahoo.co.uk<mailto:gnukid1 at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
Hi Nishal,

I'm updating the blog post, based on your feedback.

Thank you again for bring some light into this.

My personal opinion on this is that we need better statistics. What could be done is requiring ISPs put RIPE atlas probes at each ISP's end on at least 2 customers. Then, the website for MIXP should constantly display statistics such as latency. Showing only traffic transiting like it does right now does not with diagnosing peering problems.

So, for ISP A to ISP B, we would get the latency. For ISP B to ISP A, we would get another latency.

On Friday, 23 October 2015, 0:35, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za<mailto:nishal at controlfreak.co.za>> wrote:

On 22 Oct 2015, at 22:01, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:

> Hi All,
> I wrote about my adventures at attempting to fix the huge latency in
> Mauritius:
> URL:
> http://logan.hackers.mu/2015/10/mixp-latency-problem

logan,

i think that you have some misconception on how the MIXP (or any IXP) is
meant to operate.
this sentence is correct:
“The Mauritius Internet Exchange Point is where my traffic and his
internet traffic can meet other.”

this sentence is incorrect:
“for traffic which is supposed to be managed by the Mauritius Internet
Exchange Point”

…it’s likely that you haven’t worked for any length of time at a
network operator, or any network that participates in internet peering,
so let me help you understand how this all ties in together.

an internet exchange point IXP is - by almost anyone’s definition - a
neutral meeting ground where network operators exchange traffic.  the
IXP itself *does not* and *should not* participate in the traffic
exchange.
that is to say, that the IXP operator (let’s call it the MIXP
management, in this case) does nothing to the traffic, other than to
support a platform for it to be exchanged, as quickly, and cheaply,
across - in this case, they would be responsible for the availability of
the ethernet switches that are in use as the foundation of the MIXP (ie.
  is the peering switch up?)

that’s it.

the choice to *use* the IXP to move traffic between networks, is
fundamentally, a decision of the networks that choose to peer (or not!).
  a good IXP operator doesn’t enforce any sort of mandatory
multilateral peering policy, and in fact, there’s zero history in the
22years of IXPs, of this MMLP succeeding.  a good IXP operator performs
introductions, and encourages networks to peer;  but the choice is
really that of the network provider.  then again, the onus is on *both*
operators to peer.  if operator A advertises his network prefixes to
operator B, but operator B does not advertise B’s prefixes back to A,
we only have half of the solution.  traffic would flow from B->A and
then A->outside world->B.  (this is more common that you might imagine)

i’m correcting you, because, i think it’s important that you
understand that it’s *not* the MIXP that’s playing tricks with your
traffic, and *not* the MIXP that needs to take action here;  indeed, you
did the right thing:  complain to your ISP.  and if they don’t fix it,
complain louder, and then vote with your feet and wallet!    and do the
same at your workplace.  and tell your friends…
in your case, there was some improvement made;  clearly you feel
there’s more that could be done, and i’m sure with the help of
“man traceroute” you can guide your ISP further :-)

so this sentence “I sincerely hope that the Mauritius Internet
Exchange Point fixes the latency issue.” … is quite incorrect;  what
you mean is:  “i sincerely hope that the two networks resolve their
peering problems”.  you might even find that they don’t use the
MIXP at all, but choose to peer elsewhere in-country (and that’s ok!)

perhaps, you should be asking instead:
- what can the MIXP do to promote peering, and teach networks about why
this is important?  i think that’s a reasonable request, and one that
the MIXP management team should be able to do.
- what tools can the MIXP use to make it easier for peering participants
to get started peering;  also, reasonable, imho.
- how we can, as the open-source, non-tech affiliated community help?
…etc.

i hope you understand a little better, about how truly non-intrusive, an
IXP is.

best,

—n.

__________________________________________________________
Linux User Group of Mauritius (LUGM) Discuss mailing list
Website: http://lugm.org
Mailing list archive: http://discuss.lugm.org/pipermail/discuss_discuss.lugm.org/
Forum: http://lugm.org/forum/
IRC: #linux.mu<http://linux.mu> on Freenode

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://discuss.lugm.org/pipermail/discuss_discuss.lugm.org/attachments/20151023/4bb81d6d/attachment.html>