Results 1 to 21 of 21

  1. Post
    #1

    News: Peering Update

    After several years of nonsense during which the country's biggest internet providers stopped cooperating on internet peering, it seems Telecom is about to set up a new peering system that will effectively be run free of charge for those internet providers making the effort to connect to the system.

    Peering was in place in New Zealand up until 2004 and it allowed internet providers to hand traffic between each other at central exchange points in Auckland and Wellington. The ISPs didn't charge each other for handing over internet traffic, so it wasn't a very complicated system to run. It meant that internet traffic could get to its intended destination in a relatively direct route. If a web business was on TelstraClear and its customers were connecting via Telecom the traffic was simply handed between the two companies and distributed.

    But the plug was pulled on that arrangement in 2004 when Telecom and TelstraClear de-peered from those exchanges. Why did they do it? Because it cost the telcos less money to de-peer.

    They pointed to big content providers like Trade Me and the country's various media portals and said peering favoured these companies because the telcos had to invest in infrastructure to make sure internet peering ran smoothly as internet traffic increased.

    But critics of the telcos pointed out that internet users were in fact being charged to access the internet and if they wanted to use Trade Me or the Herald Online, the telcos had an obligation to offer that access in the most efficient way.

    Anyway, it all fell apart in 2004 with the Telecom and TelstraClear withdrawing into their shells amid howls of protest from the rest of the industry. Soon the big content generators were negotiating alternative routes to get traffic around the country, which in many cases involved sending traffic overseas. Obviously that chewed up more precious international capacity and led to greater latency in connections so reduced performance for customers.

    Telecom is now planning to set up 29 peering points around the country. There are cost details to be worked out and already the smaller ISPs are worried about this. But still, it is a start. There hasn't been any movement on peering in four years so the trials of peering getting under way this month are a real sign that the attitude of Telecom is softening.
    Why don't they just peer at the APE and WIX??

  2. Post
    #2
    because peering at APEs is dangerous, they throw dung.

    Ok im sorry.
    I will go now.

  3. Post
    #3
    Zeon wrote:
    Why don't they just peer at the APE and WIX??
    Telecom’s wholesale arm has set a date for its proposed new peering service and says it will be run on a “bill and keep” basis, or essentially free of charge.

    ISPs, content providers and “anyone who wants to exchange data” will be allowed to link to a local peering centre, says spokesman Steve Pettigrew.

    “The emphasis is on exchange,” he says — flow of data across the link between Telecom and other networks is expected to be approximately equal in each direction.

    The service will provide “internet-type” connection “in other words on a best-efforts basis”, he says.

    A trial, with a limited number of ISPs and content providers, is due to start later this month over three centres, probably Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, leading to a final offering around August, according to Pettigrew.

    “I was told it was going to be July,” says Jamie Baddeley of the ISP Association of NZ (ISPANZ).

    Telecom aims to set up 29 peering points on its national network and peering will be gradually extended to more of them on the basis of demand, Pettigrew says.

    The main snag,
    according to Baddeley, is that participants will have to pay the cost of getting from their nodes to the chosen location of the Telecom nodes. These will be the SkyTower in Auckland and Murphy Street, Thorndon for Wellington. The location of a Christchurch peering point is still unclear.

    However, if the ISP is already purchasing a wholesale service from Telecom, Pettigrew says, a suitable link with spare capacity for peering may already be in place.

    In earlier stages of negotiation, ISPANZ had proposed that Telecom pay for the link at about half the nodes to equalise costs, but the final arrangement “is based on us coming to them at all 29 points”, Baddeley says.

    Telecom has mentioned that it might be amenable to some cost-sharing, but wants to negotiate this on an ISP-by-ISP basis and there is concern that there could be some favouritism unless the negotiations are completely transparent, he says.

    The other limitation, he says, is that the offer only applies to DSL internet traffic at present, which is about half of the total Telecom traffic currently suffering from a lack of peering.

    Peering used to take place freely through specially built exchanges in Auckland and Wellington but, in 2004, first TelstraClear and then Telecom withdrew their participation in the peering agreement.

    This has forced local traffic to take long routes to its destination, often via Australia or the US, and some major content providers have found it cheaper to site their servers overseas than in New Zealand.

    Baddeley cautiously welcomes the plan. “Credit to them for doing it, but I’d say we’re only about a third of the way [towards full restoration of peering].”

  4. Post
    #4
    Zeon wrote:
    Why don't they just peer at the APE and WIX??
    Telecom are tools.

  5. Post
    #5
    Zeon wrote:
    Why don't they just peer at the APE and WIX??
    Because looking like your working with other ISPs to provide NZ with better service is enough, actually doing something of genuine value has never been a necessity for telecom.

  6. Post
    #6
    Vulcan wrote:
    Because looking like your working with other ISPs to provide NZ with better service is enough, actually doing something of genuine value has never been a necessity for telecom.

    hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaahha

    +1 to vulcan...

  7. Post
    #7
    how does this benefit the average user??im lost

  8. Post
    #8
    Croydon wrote:
    how does this benefit the average user??im lost
    Pretty sure it allows traffic to take a more direct route to new zealand websites and servers.

    Bites or someone will probably give more detail.

  9. Post
    #9
    hopefully this will eventually allow us to have free national traffic again.... highly unlikely tho

  10. Post
    #10
    iascoot wrote:
    hopefully this will eventually allow us to have free national traffic again.... highly unlikely tho
    Almost every decent connection has free national - I can't see why it couldn't be a possibility with LLU.

    Just to clarify - Peering is when ISPs (and others) interconnect at very fast speeds for mutual benefit of their customers. Telecom and Telstra don't do this so speed into their networks is slower than between the networks of ISPs who peer.

  11. Post
    #11
    Peering allows for more efficient transfer of data and therefore bringing faster speeds as mentioned above because resources are better used. For example, Xnet only terminates in Auckland at the moment. So if you are in Christchurch on your Xnet connection, to connect to someone else on Xnet in Christchurch you would have to go up to Auckland and back. If Telecom were to set up a peering exchange in Christchurch AND Xnet agree to connect to it, it means that the Xnet Chch-Xnet Chch connection will go straight across town, saving a trip up to Auckland and not using capacity in those cables.

    The reason why some are against this is the fact Telecom are ignoring the current NZIX exchanges active in Auckland and Wellington (and of course why they're not using them). Multiple peering points in the same location is also a waste of resources.

    Successful peering only occurs when many parties all participate, which has already happened with current NZIX APE and WIX (well with the exception of Telecom & TelstraClear of course).

    With efficient peering, costs will drop to deliver data bringing services such as high bitrate HD streams of multimedia content to people resulting in more uptake by content providers. And of course national traffic will be easier for ISPs to deliver so more likelihood it will be free. As a result more ways to use your free national data

  12. Post
    #12
    So is this pretty much free for ISP's to join? i hope telstraclear joins too.

  13. Post
    #13
    Is this sort of like the whole neighbourhood sharing a single wifi connection to communicate with each other, instead of using there ISP's?

    This only works for national routing right? Could ISP's use peering to route international through another ISP? for instances where there international bandwidth demands exceed supply and they need to get/buy some 'emergency' bandwidth.

  14. Post
    #14
    EZAS wrote:
    Is this sort of like the whole neighbourhood sharing a single wifi connection to communicate with each other, instead of using there ISP's?

    This only works for national routing right? Could ISP's use peering to route international through another ISP? for instances where there international bandwidth demands exceed supply and they need to get/buy some 'emergency' bandwidth.
    Well that would be an interesting concept and ISP's could better utilise their bandwidth in return for some sort of monetary gain or service. IE xnet offering their VFX service to another ISP that has loads of spare international bandwidth but no VOIP service.., but if that is the case then they could even do that now provided the two ISP's pared.

  15. Post
    #15
    dex.insane wrote:
    Well that would be an interesting concept and ISP's could better utilise their bandwidth in return for some sort of monetary gain or service. IE xnet offering their VFX service to another ISP that has loads of spare international bandwidth but no VOIP service.., but if that is the case then they could even do that now provided the two ISP's pared.
    It's interesting that WxC has such a great VOIP service yet they have no idea of the difference between a corporate and home customer. They need to sort themselves out when it comes to business services because a fully integrated voice and internet system for small/medium businesses would be one of their strongpoints.

  16. Post
    #16
    umm they have DVX which is like the business voip service...

    its hard for a company to transition from residential to business... its takes time to build a track record.

    And they are also getting in on the vector fiber along with Bizo and Maxnet so they do have intent to grow into other markets it seems.

  17. Post
    #17
    That ugly set of words crept itself into the article somehow.

    best-effort

  18. Post
    #18
    dex.insane wrote:
    umm they have DVX which is like the business voip service...

    its hard for a company to transition from residential to business... its takes time to build a track record.

    And they are also getting in on the vector fiber along with Bizo and Maxnet so they do have intent to grow into other markets it seems.
    I ring up to sign up for two voice lines for our business - they won't let me without asking what my age is. They can't even put two separate lines on the same bill. Joke.

  19. Post
    #19
    Zeon wrote:
    I ring up to sign up for two voice lines for our business - they won't let me without asking what my age is.
    At age 18 "You will be fully bound by any contract you enter into (if you’re under 18 you won’t be bound unless the other side can show that the contract is fair and reasonable)."

  20. Post
    #20
    Bung wrote:
    At age 18 "You will be fully bound by any contract you enter into (if you’re under 18 you won’t be bound unless the other side can show that the contract is fair and reasonable)."
    But the point is it wasn't me who was signing into contract but rather the company I merely was representing. The twat on the other end of the phone couldn't even understand that and I had to talk to the supervisor before they figured that out.

  21. Post
    #21
    Zeon wrote:
    I ring up to sign up for two voice lines for our business - they won't let me without asking what my age is. They can't even put two separate lines on the same bill. Joke.
    This is because a) DOB is used as a security question on an account, b) able to bind you to a contract, c) businesses may have credit checks done since businesses have higher credit limits on their tolls.

    Also, you can have any number of lines on the same bill.