Hi Dr Naicken
At 15:53 23-10-2015, Stephen Naicken wrote:
>Measurements allow us to evaluate objectively, but besides that they
>are fun to look at, so I certainly hope to see more regarding the IXP
>in the future. The 20Mb/s figure alone is not what interests me per
>se, but the growth of that figure. From 2-3 to 20Mb/s in approximately
>half a year is certainly positive.
The traffic at the IXP in Rwanda is approximately 565 Mbps. About
three years ago the traffic was about 99 Mbps. The MIXP was first
set up in June 2006 (
http://www.lexpress.mu/article/moyens-%C3%A0-l%C3%A9tude-pour-rendre-linternet-plus-accessible
).
>With respect to businesses and startups, the existence of the IXP
>alone is probably not going to facilitate an increase in low latency,
>localised applications and services, but I don't think we should
>downplay its importance. I believe it to be one of many necessary
>components, particularly for a country such as Mauritius. [1] shows
>this to also be the case in other African nations.
The island would have to have an IXP or else it won't look good. I
haven't heard any local business talking about latency. The only
persons currently interested in latency are the gamers.
>The MIXP could certainly have been a failure, but it functions
>correctly, so it is certainly not that. A white elephant? By
>definition, it could only be that if the IXP is useless and has high
>costs. Experience elsewhere shows that this should not be the case
>[1]. In my opinion, if MIXP fails, it will be a reflection of ICT
>policy, ISPs and others in the domain.
I look at MIXP as the hardware and the policy/ISP stuff. Daniel Shaw
was commenting about the hardware part only. Data Communications
Limited is working on the policy/ISP stuff. The Layer 2 hardware was
likely not expensive. You would have to ask a government agency to
find out the actual costs.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Sat Oct 24 2015 - 04:26:33 PST