APRICOT 2003


SIG: IX

Wednesday 26 February 2003, Taipei International Convention Center (TICC), Taipei, Taiwan

Minutes

Meeting commenced: 4:00pm

Chair: Philip Smith

The Chair introduced the SIG and explained the agenda. He provided general guidelines for the presenters and encouraged a wide range of participation in the discussions.

Contents
  1. Discussion about IX SIG charter
  2. Election of co-Chair
  3. Nepal Internet Exchange (npIX)
  4. Update on Singapore Open Exchange (SOX)
  5. Mongolia Internet Exchange: design and implementation
  6. JPNAP report
  7. Euro-IX
  8. Equinix
  9. General discussion
  1. Discussion about IX SIG charter
  2. Philip Smith, Cisco

    The Chair displayed a draft charter for this SIG and requested feedback about any changes that should be made.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was suggested that the inclusion of IX discussions at the APIA session held earlier in the week conflicted with the APNIC IX SIG. The Chair noted that the IX SIG looked at operational reports while the APIA discussions were related to IX business operations.

    Action items

    • Action ix-15-001: The Chair to send out the draft charter to the six-ix mailing list. If no comments are received, the charter will be adopted.

    Top

  3. Election of co-Chair
  4. Philip Smith, Cisco

    The Chair stated that Che-Hoo Cheng had been nominated for co-Chair prior to meeting.

    Action items

    • Action ix-15-002: The Chair to send out the nomination of Che-Hoo Cheng as co-Chair to the sig-ix mailing list. If no objections are received, he will become co-Chair.

    Top

  5. Nepal Internet Exchange (npIX)
  6. Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, npIX

    Presentation

    This presentation updated the operational status of npIX, which first went live on 30 August 2002. The speaker noted that the SANOG 1 meeting was an initiative of npIX. The speaker summarised the issues that needed to be overcome in setting up the IX, such as a lack of AS numbers used by members, the inability to use interference-free radio links, and a lack of a legal framework for IXPs in Nepal. The speaker summarised the ongoing developments at npIX.

    Questions and discussion

    • None

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  7. Update on Singapore Open Exchange (SOX)
  8. Kerk Chun Sing, National University of Singapore

    Presentation

    This presentation summarised the current routing situation in Singapore and initiatives of SOX, such as a distributed SOX (dSOX), which will allow more networks to participate in the Singapore local peering scene. The speaker also noted issues that may deter networks from joining the IX, such as costly local loops.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question requesting information about whether SOX was connected to HKIX via Layer 2 or 3. The audience member resolved to find out more on this issue from HKIX directly.
    • There was discussion about how members of SOX were billed. It was explained that there was a proposal to install a device to measure traffic. Whether this would be incoming or outgoing traffic was yet to be decided.

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  9. Mongolia Internet Exchange: design and implementation
  10. Batsukh Balgansuren, MIX

    Presentation

    This presentation outlined MIX and OpenMix. MIX is a neutral Layer 3 router based IX for Mongolia where commercial agreements must be signed by participants. OpenMIX is a non-profit Layer 2 switch based IX for high speed transfer of local traffic to which all Mongolian ISPs are connected. No commercial agreements are needed to connect to OpenMIX. MIX operation began in April 2001 and OpenMIX began operation in January 2003.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that the MIX needed assistance with BGP peering. It was agreed to continue the discussion outside the SIG meeting.
    • It was noted that the MIX mailing list was free for anyone to join.
    • The Chair stated that it was within the scope of the SIG to offer operational assistance to any newer IXPs such as the MIX.
    • It was noted that MIX used copper wire connections while OpenMIX used optical fibre.
    • It was noted that who would be covering the operational costs of OpenMIX was still under discussion. It was also noted that OpenMIX was not the official name for the IX, but was being used until a more appropriate name could be found.
    • The presentater confirmed that no regulatory problems had been faced by MIX or OpenMIX

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  11. JPNAP report
  12. Nobuhisa Miyake, Internet Multifeed Corporation

    Presentation

    This presentation outlined the operations of JPNAP, a commercial IX in Japan that began operation in 2001. The speaker noted that traffic from JPNAP in Tokyo has increased significantly since the previous presentation at APNIC 14. The presenter stated that, in the future, the IPv4 and IPv6 based networks would be combined.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question about the customer demand for JPNAP's 10Gb Ethernet. The speaker stated that a few networks had expressed interest to date and that this was expected to increase over time.
    • There was a question about how the traffic flow differed from Japan to Japan networks as opposed to Japan to world networks. The speaker had no data on this.
    • There was a question if there was a plan to eventually merge JPIX and JPNAP. The speaker stated that there was no such plan.
    • There was discussion about whether networks utilising 10Gb Ethernet would see it as more economical to peer privately that with an IX. The speaker answered that some networks had moved way to use private peering.

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  13. Euro-IX
  14. Johan Ihren, Autonomica

    Presentation

    This presentation outlined the development Euro-IX, an association of IXPs in Europe formed in 2001 to strengthen the IXP community in Europe. Euro-IX currently has 24 members, including most of the larger IXPs in the region. The speaker stated that to date Euro-IX had held 3 Euro-IX forums where IXPs could meet and discuss common issues.

    Questions and discussion

    • It was noted that the criteria for granting membership in the Euro-IX was on the website at www.euro-ix.net.
    • There was discussion about the increasing number of IXPs developing in the Asia Pacific region. Attention was drawn to a suggestion at the APIA meeting earlier in the week that there was a need for an IXP association in the AP region. It was suggested that this could help keep costs down for member by sharing costs across the association.
    • It was commented that Euro-IX was in a unique position due to the existence of many wealthy IXPs in a small geographical area. This would allow the IXPs to meet on a regular basis without being hindered by distance or finance. However, it was noted that in the AP region, there were greater issues related to distance and finance.
    • It was also noted that there are many mailing lists available for IX discussions in non-European regions.
    • The speaker noted that Euro-IX scheduled meetings to coincide with RIPE meetings to limit costs for members and suggested the AP region could follow that model.
    • There was a comment that while IXPs seemed to be based on country boundaries, there might be an optimum number of participants in an IX that might not cover all networks in a country. In reply, it was noted that the rationale of an IXP is to have a collection of networks that would otherwise incur more expenses connecting to more distant networks.
    • It was noted that there were different criteria for networks connecting to a network outside the region versus inside the region. A European ISP would prefer to connect to a single location in Asia that had ready access to a group of networks as opposed to widely separate networks.
    • There was a comment that the upper limit on the number of exchange points would depend upon the population density of the region. That is, it would make more sense to put an IX in a densely populated area, but less economic sense to place an IX in a large, sparsely populated area.

    Action items

    • None

    Top

  15. Equinix
  16. Bill Norton, Equinix

    This presentation outlined the operations of Equinix. The speaker noted that the Internet Core Exchange (ICE), one of the Equinix operations, was developed to enable members to interconnect much quicker than regional IXs. The speaker referred to a number of research papers by Equinix such as "Internet Service Providers and Peering" that could be used by networks setting up peering relationships. The speaker stated that one of the Equinix aims was to facilitate more effective peering by bringing the peering community together in a way similar to APRICOT meetings.

    Questions and discussion

    • There was a question about the number of Taiwanese participants invited to previous Equinix forums. The speaker explained that the forums were closed events that that only peering coordinators could attend in order to stop marketing people dominating the event. He noted that there were moves to have a similar forum in the AP region.
    • It was suggested that good communication could lead to better quality of IXPs and that more communication between IXPs should occur in future.

    Top

  17. General discussion
    • It was suggested that a list of all IXPs in the AP region be compiled and sent to the IX SIG list on a regular basis. The Chair was asked to post this list to IX mailing list.
    • It was suggested that information on Chinese IXPs be included in future IX SIG meetings.
    • It was noted that nobody was present to talk about IXPs in Taiwan. The Chair explained that there had been a presentation at APNIC 14 and that the presenter had felt that six months was too short to show any substantial difference in IXP operations.

    Action items

    • Action ix-15-003: The Chair to post a list of all known IXPs to the mailing list on a regular basis.

    Meeting closed: 5:50 pm

    Minuted by: Sam Dickinson

    Open action items
    • Action ix-15-001: The Chair to send out the draft charter to the sig-ix mailing list. If no comments are received, the charter will be adopted.

    • Action ix-15-002: The Chair to send out the nomination of Che-Hoo Cheng as co-Chair to the sig-ix mailing list. If no objections are received, he will become co-Chair.

    • Action ix-15-003: The Chair to post a list of all known IXPs to the mailing list on a regular basis.

    Top

Top of page

Last modified: Monday, 19-Jul-2004 10:37:54 EST | © 1999 - 2020 APNIC Pty. Ltd.
Contact us | Privacy statement