[Mispa-management-l] (Fwd) Re: [af-ix] IXP port fee

[Dr P Nyirenda]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Subject:	[SPAM] Re: [af-ix] IXP port fee
From:	"Mr. Ghislain Nkeramugaba" <ghislain.n at ricta.org.rw>
Date sent:	Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:10:07 +0200
Copies to:	AFIX Mailing List <af-ix at af-ix.net>
To:	Dr P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>


Hello Paulos,

At RINEX (Rwanda Internet Exchange), we used to run the IX without port fees.
We introduced the port charges around 2014-2015, but had given the community ample time
(~1 year) to discuss and agree on them.
Revenues generated from RINEX help run the community outreach, meetings, workshops,
etc.

WRT content, we engage the CDN´s and do the preliminary discussions.
Once a CDN agrees to come, three things are already settled/agreed upon:

1. IP transit capacity and cost

Here, by principle, we do not procure any IPT capacity to do the cache fill.
Instead, we issue a public Request for Proposals to the local ISPs to find out who are willing
to "host" the cache.
Most importantly, the "host" ISP MUST be willing to share the cache with other ISPs
connected on the IX.
In addition, that content is "most" of the time, be redistributed at a fee (sometimes 1/8th of
the IPT general price in Kigali)
We, RINEX, we don´t enter into the "paid" peering discussion, and we don´t get anything from
it (i.e. $$).
In summary, the local ISPs are sharing the cost of the content from that cache.

2. Co-lo of the CDN servers

Here, it depends. We/RINEX can host the server(s) if small (1U or so).
If big, we ask the CDN to co-locate in the datacenter. We help them do the negotiation with
the DC operator.
So far, we´ve seen one CDN accepting to do so. Here we play an intermediary role (they pay
us, we pay the DC operator).
We want to see more of these; it contributed to the local economy (taxes, etc.)

3. Redistribution of their content;

As mentioned, this done through paid peering.
With the money/revenues it [host] generated from the paid peering content, it pays its IPT
costs.
Generally, RINEX and the host network have a short-term MoU, and the paid peering price is
reviewed after that period elapses.
We have 3 CDNs running under that model, and it helps the small ISPs, which can get
popular content at "1/8th" of the normal IPT price.

Side notes:

The strategy to have "host" networks is that we are seeding the content.
We believe/hope that after a certain time, when (1) a certain amount of content (threshold) is
being pushed out of the CDN, and (2) when IPT costs/prices reach a certain low level, it will
be easier for the CDN to "move out" of the host network and connect directly on RINEX.
However, for new CDN, we are trying to encourage them to connect directly on the IX,
without using the "host" network strategy.

This is our experience so far.

Us being able to run this model successfully in the past was/is mainly due to a local ISP who
was willing to try this.
And the fact that we are running open and transparent request for proposal made us look
credible that we building the local community.
Some CDNs also like the way we manage the caches locally; the openness and how we
encourage competition.
For example, some years ago, one small ISPs could choose to either buy GGC/Youtube at
$100/mbps or $12/mbps (via paid peering): it is straight forward for small/starting ISPs.
And generally, the "host" network would invoice the small ISPs using the 95th percentile
model

Happy to give details on a side thread if necessary.

-Ghislain


> On 24 Dec 2018, at 15:35, Kyle Spencer <kyle at stormzero.com> wrote:
>
> We recently implemented port fees at the UIXP because we outgrew the
> ability to rely solely on volunteers and donations within our context.
>
> We launched the port fees in January 2018. Implementation has been a
> struggle, to say the least, but many networks are now paying. However,
> some networks are not and, while we want to bring everyone on-board in
> a nice way, we also need to be fair to the networks that *are* paying.
>
> At the moment our policy is to leave every network connected but deny
> non-paying networks access to port upgrades and other value added
> services.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dr P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nishal,
>>
>> I get your view very clearly and luckly I could read these as fast as you speak ... errr ... or
>> write ...
>>
>> Our Malawi IXP (MIX) has been operational for just over 10 years now  ... time does go
fast
>> ... and we have espoused views very close to yours and used almost all the facilities that
you
>> mention ... PCH, ISOC, Michucki, our MISPA members ... etc to get the IXP going. We
thank
>> and have thanked you and them for all the contributions on equipment, labour to do
>> installations, expertise, capacity building, ... etc.
>>
>> We have debated port fees at MISPA on the MIX for more than two years now while we
tried
>> to find other similar avenues for raising cash for additional development of the IXP and
>> services on it and MISPA membership eventually agreed nearly 12 months ago to go with
>> port fees because we did not see any other way out for providing support for the MIX.
>>
>> While we have run the MIX on volunteer technical and admin support from the peers at
the
>> MIX for the past 10 years, this is no longer adequate, we need some dedicated support.
We
>> are starting with a suggestion of a part-time technical support again from a staff member
of a
>> peer which also supports a help desk. We very much doubt if PCH, ISOC or Michuki will
pay
>> a part-time or full-time technical staff member for this. In this way we will be continuing
with
>> volunteer support with some dedication, hopefully.
>>
>> Provision of content services at the MIX has become a double edged sword at the MIX
which
>> provides major differences to the model that you espouse. While all peers at the MIX
agree
>> that these content services are needed and they are excited that they are there, paying for
>> them either for the the transit or for the consumption by the peers does not attract so
much
>> excitement. The need for reliability in providing these content services raises much higher
>> demand for support that a normal ... best effort ... IXP requires hence the need to put in
place
>> a dedicated staff member.
>>
>> Enforcement of port fees (like port disconnection) is a very major issue that we have not
yet
>> dealt with, it scares the living daylights out of many of us ... comments on this are
welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paulos
>> ======================
>> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
>> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
>> http://www.registrar.mw
>>
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2018 at 11:02, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:39, Dr P Nyirenda wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2018 at 21:55, Frank Habicht wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dr Paulos,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is a good thing if an IXP can sustain itself financially.
>>>>> As it happens, many value-adding services at an IXP come with
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> components, and even getting these [possibly donations] out of
>>>>> customs
>>>>> costs money.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Frank for the details. Our Malawi ISP Association (MISPA)
>>>> has agreed to work on
>>>> operating our IXP more sustainably and that is why we are fumbling
>>>> around for ideas and
>>>> figures. Your contribution will greatly help us reach more detailed
>>>> agreements. It is hard to
>>>> run an IXP reliably without such resources.
>>>
>>>
>>> i have a slightly different view to frank.  bear in mind that inx-za
>>> does have port fees (see the faq at www.inx.net.za), but i´d like to
>>> explain why, and why this is a good and bad thing sometimes.
>>> ultimately, i think that you really want to think about what you want
>>> your IXP to be doing, in the medium term, and then working out what´s
>>> best for you, and it certainly won´t help having different viewpoints.
>>>
>>> i am opposed to port fees in general;  this might sound strange, given
>>> that inx-za has these;  but there are two other inx-za board members
>>> on-list here as well, to confirm that i´m a continuous voice to
>>> reduce, and to try to remove these.
>>>
>>> switching hats quickly, the mantra that we use at PCH, is that peering
>>> should reduce the "average per bit delivery cost" (APBDC) of the
>>> network.  in simple terms, it means that moving your traffic, through
>>> peering ports, should reduce the cost of your network, and if this is
>>> not working, then there´s something wrong with the peering environment
>>> for you.
>>> charging a port fee, disincentives a reduction in APBDC.  it
>>> disincentives networks from interconnecting and peering;  which is a
>>> huge problem, particularly if the IX is still in its nascent stages, or
>>> if the networks are small.  it discourages foreign networks from
>>> connecting to you, especially if your fees are high.
>>>
>>> i accept that sustainability is a huge concern;  but sustainability is a
>>> meaningless word, if you don´t have actions to tie to this.  charging
>>> port fees to build a large bank balance is an abuse of your
>>> community´s trust.  yes, it´s true that there are costs that the IX
>>> often has to deal with, so, perhaps it´s worth asking:  how do you
>>> deal with those?  doc, i like that you´ve written:  "operating our
>>> IXP more sustainably";  many others simply say:   "we want to charge
>>> a fee .. " and seem to think that this is the only solution.
>>>
>>> what are the costs that you have now?   the first that comes to mind, is
>>> usually hardware.  it´s no secret that, if you need a new switch, or
>>> to upgrade your existing ones, you can write to PCH, and we´ll happily
>>> send you an upgrade;  we´ve done that to many of the IXPs here.  if
>>> you need servers for BGP route servers, michuki has offered these many
>>> times, and ISOC will send you equipment for that.  switches and
>>> route-servers are, by far, the largest part of what you´ll need to run
>>> the IX;  sure, you might need management equipment too.  the management
>>> router that we use at JINX, is a cisco 7206VXR, that was manufactured in
>>> 2003  (so it´s 15years old now!)  that was *donated* to us by a peer.
>>> they gave us six, actually, since these are no longer in use in their
>>> network, and they had no need for it.  and because our management
>>> network has to carry traffic for just our measurements/monitoring, as
>>> well as traffic for the DNS nodes that we support, which is, all-in-all,
>>> less than 20mb/s, this is already gross overkill.
>>>
>>> btw, a cisco 2801, which will carry this same traffic load happily, and
>>> still run ssh2, is $30 on ebay.  if you really have to, i would advise
>>> you to buy 2x for redundancy!   :-)  or, be lazy like me, and ask your
>>> membership who has old equipment that they´re willing to donate.  the
>>> seattleix has a nice page on their website that lists donations that
>>> they´ve received over time.  this culture of coming together, to make
>>> something work for your community, is not as strange idea, as some may
>>> think.
>>>
>>> one concern that you might hear is that the IXP might need cash to clear
>>> goods from customs;  one IXP once said to me, that they didn´t have
>>> the $500 to clear the 10gb switch upgrade that PCH had donated to them
>>> from customs.  when i found out, after four months, i offered to pay
>>> this from my personal account, because i felt that it was important
>>> that, given the challenges that that particular IX was facing, that they
>>> perform the upgrade, and still be free.
>>> i *did* note sadly, that in all the time that this was stuck in customs,
>>> there was no general call to the IXP membership to ask for a donation.
>>> i´m sure that many other networks in country, that actually use the
>>> IX, would have felt the same that i did - that investing in this
>>> important resource, was an investment into your community´s future.
>>>
>>> so take hardware off the table, since there are well established wasy
>>> (PCH has been doing donations for 20+years;  michuki can support your
>>> server needs :-)) to obtain donations.  there are still other costs that
>>> you might have to incur, like having to deal with power redundancy, etc.
>>>  again, there´s no reason that these can´t be covered by a simple
>>> costing analysis and presentation to your peers, and then soliciting
>>> donations/funds *for the project* itself.  i know of several IXPs that
>>> have done this;  raised capital for a particular venture *only*.
>>>
>>> staff?  i always make a point of saying that its in the ISPs interests
>>> to make sure that the IXP operates.  and its in the ISPs that you´ll
>>> find the core skills that you´ll need to get the basic IX functions
>>> operational;  understanding of bgp, snmp, and routing quirks.  a small
>>> team of volunteers can easily manage this;  that´s how the JINX ran
>>> for 19years, and still largely continues to operate.
>>>
>>> so, leverage your community.  i am a strong believer of the spirit of
>>> the community.  but that spirit is only as good, as the effort and the
>>> energy that you put into growing your community.  so, do you have
>>> community meetings (these are not big fancy events like afpif, etc) but
>>> rather smaller, close-knit meetings to help your community get to
>>> network?  these can be done quite cheaply;  a meeting-room at a local
>>> company/university, even pub :-)   beer and pizza, which, can be easily
>>> covered by any single organisation´s marketing budget.  during afpif,
>>> kznnog (the upcoming NOG in durban, south africa) spoke how they do
>>> this;  i believe the video should be online..
>>>
>>> does your community know your challenges?  do they see opportunities
>>> that they want you to invest in?  (i´ll expand on that in a bit).
>>> and, a really fundamental point for me - do they believe that the work
>>> you´re doing is for their benefit?   because if you can tick these
>>> boxes, your work as an IX operator becomes a lot easier.
>>>
>>> i mentioned that inx-za has port fees;  this is largely because we
>>> started off, like most of you here, from the country´s ISPA.  in the
>>> earlier days, just about all of the IX port fees were used in legal
>>> battles against our horrid incumbent;  the "port fees" made a
>>> convenient way of helping to raise revenue to do this.  nowadays,
>>> that´s less of a concern (there are still legal battles ongoing).  our
>>> community has instead _asked_ us to do things for them;  a few years
>>> ago, the community _asked_ that we go multisite.  that, has ongoing
>>> costs - equipment, and transmission across the cities.  but let me be
>>> clear about this - we did this *because* our community asked for it.
>>> this was not a "build it and they will come" scenario.  so, in the
>>> context of:  "we want this, and we are willing to pay for it", which
>>> is very much a south african business mentality, we´ve retained the
>>> port fees, as a way to fund this multisite build.  although they´ve
>>> been dropping annually, as transmission costs are reduced.  we now have
>>> one 1/2day fte, responsible for 9sites in three cities.  so no large
>>> staff complement.  and we still rely solely on our community to (1)
>>> choose what we should be doing *for them*, and (2) funding this.
>>>
>>> so, my advice is, if you can get by without it, don´t invest yourself
>>> into the idea that port fees are how you should start, or grow your IXP.
>>>  you do *not* need fees to be sustainable;  just think outside the box!
>>>  sure, you might get to a point where your membership might start to
>>> ask more than what´s needed by volunteers.
>>> and i think that this is a good recipe for success;  rather than,
>>> forcing costs down your peers throats _at the start_.   this is largely
>>> my gripe with many new IXPs;  either you invest in too expensive
>>> equipment/data-centre/staff, and then you force yourself into a
>>> situation where you simply _have_ to raise funds to pay these off.  and
>>> unfortunately, i can give you examples from across the world where this
>>> has not worked out well  :-(
>>> this is also why, there are now meetings to "avoid IXP stagnation".
>>> when, instead, we should be meeting to "promote operator
>>> interconnectivity between economies"  :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> i think that, somewhere along the way, a portion of this IX
>>> "industry" got distracted from what an IXP truly is meant to be;  a
>>> neutral meeting place for peers to exchange traffic.  they got caught up
>>> in industry trade shows  (vs. community events);  in marketing and
>>> products  (vs. training, education, and advocacy);  in seeing the IX as
>>> a business, instead of seeing it as a business-enabling tool.  whilst
>>> i´m sure there are others that find this perfectly acceptable, i,
>>> personally, find it quite sad.  because if this is a business, then, we
>>> (on this list) are competitors.  and the community spirit of
>>> collaboration, that, i
>>> think, we need to find, to continue to build and grow africa´s
>>> internet, heavily at risk.
>>>
>>> so my view on IXPs, which you might find old fashioned, is that this is
>>> a simple bandwidth exchange mechanism;  no complexity, and thus, no
>>> politics, and no drama.  (we have annual elections that usually take
>>> less than 3min, as compared to another non-profit we all know  :-))
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you have additional fees at TIX for providing content services like
>>>> GGC, Akamai, etc ?
>>>
>>> at INX-ZA, it´s a flat port fee.  we don´t provide "commercial
>>> services";  instead, our services are things like BGP route
>>> collectors;  route-servers;  as112.net,  RPKI validators, etc.  happy to
>>> discuss those if you´d like.  at not cost, whilst we´re not
>>> competitors  ;-)
>>>
>>> as always, ymmv,
>>> -n.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> af-ix mailing list
>>> af-ix at af-ix.net
>>> http://af-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/af-ix_af-ix.net
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> af-ix mailing list
>> af-ix at af-ix.net
>> http://af-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/af-ix_af-ix.net
>
>
>
> --
> Cell/WhatsApp/Signal: +256790884905
>
> _______________________________________________
> af-ix mailing list
> af-ix at af-ix.net
> http://af-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/af-ix_af-ix.net

------- End of forwarded message -------


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WPM$PROX.PM$
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 18716 bytes
Desc: Mail message body
URL: <http://chambo3.sdnp.org.mw/pipermail/mispa-management-l/attachments/20190222/01cc6bed/attachment-0001.obj>