Hi Daniel,
At 05:04 23-10-2015, Daniel Shaw wrote:
>In my opinion: It does actually work. It definitely was not prior to
>earlier this year. it definitely is now.
>
>The misconception most folks have is that at an IXP, everyone must
>and should peer with everyone else. This is completely false.
>
>As Nishal explained on LUGM, an IX is simply an infrastructure that
>allows that to happen. As soon as one or two networks peer with one
>or two others, the IX is working.
There is a news article at
http://www.lexpress.mu/article/251452/tic-un-point-dechange-internet-local-pour-reduire-couts-connexion
in which it is stated that: "De plus, l'Internet sera plus
rapide". An internet user in Mauritius would expect the internet to
be faster on reading that news article. From what you wrote above,
it looks like even if the IX works it does not mean that the internet
(in Mauritius) will be faster.
In my opinion, there are different objectives here; it is in the
interest of the internet users (in Mauritius) to keep local traffic
local; the person paid to set up the infrastructure only focuses on
that as it is irrelevant whether the IX makes the internet faster or not.
>Since we started working on the set up of the MIXP earlier this year
>the traffic as increased from around maybe 2 or 3 Mb/s daily in late
>July to an average of almost 20 Mb/s daily now, and was even higher
>from a time.
According to the above the MIXP is seeing as much traffic as a user
on My.T 20M (without FUP) would generate.
>In November last year there were only 4 networks patched in, and I
>think almost none of them had active sessions. Now we have 9
>organisations and 11 ASNs active. And almost 10x traffic volume.
>
>To me that is a vast step forward.
>
>Just because your favourite ISP A has chosen not (yet, perhaps) to
>peer with your favourite ISP B, does not make the MIXP a failure.
Let's not call it a failure; how about calling it a white elephant? :-)
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Fri Oct 23 2015 - 14:06:50 PST