nuclearcat
btw TRA release some papers regarding REQUIRING providers to interconnect
But i guess ISP's not listening to them much... that's bad side
battikh
and what's the case between 2 users from the same ISP (no need to go threw BIX or international links)? if 2 users living in the same area (to take the most ideal case) are sharing some files via msn, are they getting better bandwidth? and is the traffic counted as part of their monthly quota?
teodorgeorgiev
Battikh, for BIX the case has been already explained in the document and by Denys, but here is yet another case:
When we (VISP) interconnected with BIX, the members of the other ISPs were able to play on the gaming network with a
quite acceptable latency (30-40ms, guess - with fiber it will be at least twice less). But then, the link became oversaturated
really quickly.
2Mbps for:
* VISP users to access popular websites colocated at other ISPs. Only the traffic of our users towards the popular Alfa
website oversaturated the 2Mbps link between VISP and the BIX. Even if the link was 4Mbps, just the traffic towards Alfa
would saturate it once again!!!
* users of other ISPs playing on VISP gaming network.
* Torrents and direct file transfer between users of any two ISPs.
And when the 2Mbps link becomes oversaturated only with the traffic towards the Alfa website, guess how appropriate is to
route any other traffic into it... like the gaming network. It will make the things WORSE, not better, it is obvious.
Conclusion: Jubran Bassil (a.k.a. the "Wonder Kid") and Abdul Youseff are IDIOTS. This is a medical diagnose, not an insult.
As for your other questions:
Yes, it is up to the ISPs if they are going to interconnect at Layer2/3 (VLAN & BGP), but why wouldn't they? They were eager to interonnect and when they had the ability via BIX, they did it. As you can read in the document - the only licensed ISP in
Lebanon that is not a member of BIX is Ogero.
As for your last question - the traffic between two users that belong to the same ISP, well now it doesn't work. And it doesn't
work for several reasons:
* The ISPs currently are putting fixed speed limitation on the accounts - 64Kbps download and that is all. No matter if
the users download from Internet, or from a local to the ISP website. Why?
1. Because their billing systems and bandwidth management systems are not configured to do so. It is a liiiiitle bit harder
to implement different speed limits for the different sources, ESPECIALLY if the ISP admins have no idea how to mark traffic
via ToS/DSCP as a start.
But it is pretty easy. At the router connected to BIX you just mark the packets with a particular DSCP mark. Then at the router
that limits the bandwidth towards the user you just define that the traffic coming with that DSCP mark should be limited at
some other speed (like twice higher than the regular speed).
2. Since there are no high-speed/capacity links between the Lebanese ISPs, it is pretty senseless to do it. But when there is,
I am sure that the ISPs will start reconfiguring their billing systems and routers in order to remain competitive.
3. As stated in the document most of the links in Lebanon are wireless, as a result of this the air spectrum is oversaturated.
So one can't offer much higher speeds to the end-users that are connected via wireless. Let suppose you have a small location
with 50 Internet consumers connected via the same AP. How much you give can give to each of them? Not more than 768Kbps/1Mbps. But hold on, then this AP and several other APs connect to the main AP (YES, AGAIN VIA WIRELESS) of
the ISP, which has some 40Mbps capacity. So, you end up having 200-300 users via the same wireless AP. How much bandwidth you can give to each of them?
That is why in Stage 2 of the proposed project it is needed to connect several remote POPs in Beirut via fiber and not via wireless.
In VISP, we have done some improvements towards this idea. For these users where it is appropriate (located closer to
our backbone, using LAN cable / DSL, not wireless) we are providing doubled speed to our local facilities (v-enjoy) and the speed towards the gaming servers is not limited (for all users, no matter how connected to us). As for the other ISPs -
I have no idea.
Hope this answers your questions.
teodorgeorgiev
Btw, you have missed the point. Ogero is not connected to BIX not because the other ISPs were not willing to interconnect with them, but because Ogero was the one not willing.
So OK, when the fiber project has been completed, let Ogero remain aside and they will lose the majority of their customers,
besides the masohist ones :cool:
battikh
teodorgeorgiev wroteBtw, you have missed the point. Ogero is not connected to BIX not because the other ISPs were not willing to interconnect with them, but because Ogero was the one not willing.
no no, i didn't mean it that way, it was clear in the document that ogero are not part of it because THEY don't want...
teodorgeorgiev
Ok, thanks for the graphs. An update has been done to the document.
More improvements and content changes are more than welcome.
rolf
This is too complicated for decision makers.
You need to write something like this
Faster Internet -> More IT companies in Lebanon -> More Tax Revenue -> More Money for you Sir
teodorgeorgiev
Yes, this will be added as well. Let the retards sleep well - they will be able to plunder in future even if this project takes place.
BashLogic
/me wonders why people are still talking about stoneage benefits of a local exchange point. there are other benefits as well such as path redundancy, load balancing connections and lets not forget multicast and voip services....
teodorgeorgiev
Are you out of your mind or what? Your words sound like that guy who had a house without a WC, but was dreaming of a jakuzzi...
Multicast - well, I mentioned teleconferencing and stuff.
And.... Mr. Smarty pants, if I mention IPTV and VoIP in the project, the government people will shout like lions against it.... Guess why.
BashLogic
hmm..
so what was the purpose of this document that is being composed?
it requires a lot of additional work before it could become a foundation proposal for whatever claim.
the topic is too oriented arround carrier connectivity and connection distribution.
the infrastructure as a whole subject has not been addressed at all! for example control of
- connections
- control & redundancy of security
- control & redundancy IP address spaces
- control & redundancy of DNS
- connectivity optimiziation
- restriction of technology usage
- ipv4 & ipv6
- media convergence
- multicast channels
etc
the network as a whole infrastructure has not been addressed. designing the network is not a challenge. designing and maintaining the infrastructure is the challenge.
it is commin in many countries that the infrastructure is administered by a neutral commercial organization provisioning these services to all the ISPs and institutions that require to be pluged in.
teodorgeorgiev
The idea is to have decent connectivity in Lebanon. Everything else can be easily managed. Multicasting, broadcasting, showcasting, shitcasting,goatfcking.... whatever.
BashLogic
so, when it comes to defining the infrastructure, you need to cover all topics!
J4D
ok im in i registered with my Google account . but here it is again anyways :)
berrojad@gmail.com
