{"id":4645,"date":"2012-09-07T06:13:46","date_gmt":"2012-09-07T11:13:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ict-pulse.com\/?p=4645"},"modified":"2012-09-07T19:27:08","modified_gmt":"2012-09-08T00:27:08","slug":"revisiting-case-ixps-caribbean","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ict-pulse.com\/2012\/09\/revisiting-case-ixps-caribbean\/","title":{"rendered":"Revisiting the case for IXPs in the Caribbean"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the 8th Caribbean Internet Governance Forum held in Saint Lucia on 29\u201430 August, Bevil Wooding advocated for national Internet Exchange Points to be deployed.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Over the past year or so, the need for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the Caribbean has been promoted as a means of introducing connectivity efficiencies from which both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and consumers can benefit. At last week\u2019s 8th Caribbean Internet Governance Forum, (CIGF) held in Saint Lucia, and organised by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)<\/a>, Bevil Wooding, Internet Strategist at Packet Clearing House<\/a>, again made the case for the establishment of IXPs. This post summarises his talk. His presentation slides can be found on the CTU website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

IXPs are not only about connectivity efficiencies<\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Bevil Wooding, Outreach Manager, Packet Clearing House<\/p><\/div>\n

In his talk, Wooding first established a context for IXPs by highlighting the types of arrangements Internet network operators enter into, in order to connect with other networks. He noted that Internet network operators must cooperate privately with each other in order deliver global connectivity, while publicly competing for customers. Two options are typically used to establish connectivity between operators: peering and transiting. Peering speaks to reciprocal arrangements between providers where they deliver each other\u2019s traffic for free, whilst with transit arrangements, both parties pay each other to deliver each other\u2019s traffic.<\/p>\n

Peering is often used when relatively equitable benefits will be realised by the parties, e.g., if the traffic flow between them is more or less equal, and if they were to pay each other, the net difference would be minimal. In contrast, transiting arrangements are likely to be employed when one party has considerable leverage over, and\/or will benefit more significantly than, the other. For example, transiting may be agreed when considerably more traffic flows in one direction that another, for example from the Caribbean to United States (US). Hence the recipient of the greater traffic could receive a significant net payment.\u00a0 Hence, all ISPs aim to minimise transit costs. They try to exchange as much traffic as possible via peering, and pay for access for the rest.<\/p>\n