IDNs and IXPs: Technology and Policy on the Internet's Frontiers. Andrew McLaughlin Berkman Fellow 18 April 2002

Transcription

1 IDNs and IXPs: Technology and Policy on the Internet's Frontiers Andrew McLaughlin Berkman Fellow 18 April 2002

2 My Theme (and I do have one ) Institutionally speaking, how can technical/policy problems get solved? Two case studies: Internet traffic exchange in developing countries (i.e., infrastructure deployment) Internationalization of DNS names for the global Internet (i.e., protocol deployment)

3 Background: Internet in Africa Of the 770 million people in Africa: 1 in 13 have a TV (50m) 1 in 40 have a fixed line (20m) 1 in 40 have a GSM line (20m) 1 in 130 have a PC (5.9m) 1 in 150 use the Internet (5.5m) 1 in 400 have pay-tv (2m) All 54 countries have Internet connectivity in their capitals Total dial-up subscribers: 1.3 million North Africa: 280,000 South Africa: 750,000 Other 49 countries: 300,000 Total international bandwidth: over 1 Gigabyte incoming; 800 Mbps outgoing [Source: APC]

4 Competition in African Internet Services Total number of public ISPs: 575 (Excluding South Africa, where the market has consolidated into 3 major players with 90% of the market and 75 small players with the remainder.) Countries with: Only 1 active ISP: 20 Only Ethiopia and Mauritius have monopoly ISP as national policy (I.e, private companies barred from reselling Internet services) But it s effectively true across the sub-saharan region 5 or more active ISPs: or more active ISPs: 7 (Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Togo) Bandwidth International links of 2 Mbps or more: 23 countries International links of 5 Mbps or more: 10 countries (Botswana, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zimbabwe)

5

6

7 Barriers to Internet Deployment Irregular electricity supplies Tax regimes Often treat info. tech. as luxury items Competition/liberalization/monopoly Cost of connectivity

8 IXP = Internet Exchange Point A physical network infrastructure (layer 2), operated by a single entity to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between 3 or more ISPs. Neutrality Typically, the IXP owns and operates the switching platforms used to interconnect the various users/subscribers. Shared switch fabric, where users arrange peering via bilateral agreements and then establish BGP4 sessions between routers to exchange routes and traffic Advantages: Lower Costs and Better Quality of Service Not technically complicated; challenge is in human dynamics

9 Cost Advantages International links entail both upstream and downstream packet traffic (and costs) In telephony world, costs of calls are shared 50/50-ish between telcos In Internet world, costs depend on peering vs. transit agreements. Developing country ISPs must sign transit, not peering, agreements, and must pay 100% of both outbound and inbound packet traffic. Compare: US to Kenya vs. Kenya to US

10 Footnote: Transit vs. Peering Peering = bilateral business & technical arrangement 2 providers agree to accept traffic from one another and from one another s customers (and their customers customers) No obligation to carry traffic to 3d parties No cash payments involved (more like barter) Transit = bilateral business & technical arrangement Transit provider carries traffic to 3d parties or from 3d parties to customer (end point) Most transit agreements: transit provider will carry traffic to/from its other customers AND to/from every destination on the Internet Defined price for access to entire Internet

11 Service advantages Most developing country ISPs use satellite circuits for international connections to upstream ISPs No fiber optic connections available Satellite connections introduce latency International exchange of domestic traffic via satellite requires at least 2 satellite hops

12 In our networked world: Closer is cheaper Closer is faster Closer is more efficient Or: Localization of packet traffic keeping the physical path traversed by packets as short as possible produces measurable improvements in service cost, performance, and efficiency

13 Developing Country w/ no IXP Each ISP has its own international connection to the global Internet Satellite or fiber Even domestic traffic has to flow over international links before being routed back to another local ISP (By the way, it s no longer true that all Internet routes lead to the US) This is needlessly expensive, and limits services (crummier response times) Without a domestic IXP, it s actually better to host online content and services offshore

14 The Case of Kenya No IXP on African continent between Cairo and Johannesburg KIXP organized by TESPOK, launched in November 2000 December 2000: CCK orders KIXP closed on complaint from Telkom Kenya

15 Kenya: Background Telkom Kenya has statutory monopoly over fixed network infrastructure (local, national, international, leased lines) ISP services open to competition, but ISPs rely on Telkom Kenya for underlying infrastructure Until KIXP, all Internet traffic in Kenya exchanged internationally Roughly 30% of upstream traffic is actually to a local destination [TESPOK]

16 KIXP Reduced latency from average of milliseconds (via satellite) to milliseconds Reduced costs: 64 kbit/s circuit: US $200 (domestic) vs. $3375 (int l) 512 kbit/s circuit: US $650 (domestic) vs. $9546 (int l) [Source: TESPOK]

17 Kenya: Endgame Kenyan ISPs argued that KIXP is closed user group, which would be legal under Kenyan Telecommunications Act Also: Local exchange of domestic traffic does not contravene Telkom Kenya s international monopoly, as all international trafic would continue to flow over its international links October 2001: CCK grants license, with request that ISPs partner with Telkom Kenya February 2002: No decision from incumbent, so ISPs decide to re-launch KIXP

18 The Case of Bangladesh No IXP Why not? BTTB (Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board) says: No funding available from government. Even though IXP would save BTTB money, lower costs for users, improve levels of service As government-sanctioned monopoly, BTTB needs regulator approval (and budgeting) for new services Traceroute from one Bangladeshi ISP to another shows traffic travelling via Hong Kong, the U.S., and Canada, with 2 satellite hops Most Bangladeshi sites hosted in the U.S.

19 So: The goal: Domestic Internet traffic exchange in developing countries The obstacles: Resistance by Government/Regulator Dependence on Telco revenue for national budget Telco influence with regulatory authority Regulator cluelessness Statutory or other licensing requirements Ordinary corruption Resistance by monopoly Telco seeking monopoly rents Sole provider of int l leased lines Fear of effective competition Resistance by competing ISPs Fear of making life cheaper for competitors

20 How to help? Needed: Regulatory reform and liberalization Regulators need to be brought onboard ISPs need to trust each other a neutral ISP Association is a good first step Hard point to convey: It s not a zero-sum game. More communication leads to more communication, via all channels.

21 Current IXP Efforts in Africa Uganda Advanced stage of development Licensed by UCC (very supportive) Should launch this month or next Tanzania Mozambique Ghana (sort of)

22 Some Other Key Policy Areas Tax treatment of Internet equipment and services Telephone tariffs Local call charges for Internet, regardless of distance to POP Special area code 18 countries so far In Seychelles, 50% lower tariff for Internet calls Liberalization of international links Two-way satellite-based Internet services using very small aperture terminals (VSAT) to connect directly the US or Europe have been quickly adopted where ever regulations allow (DR Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) Result: ISPs that are not dependent on the monopoly telecom operator for their international bandwidth. Pricing: $700-$900 for two-way KU-band VSAT equipment providing 'better than dialup' speeds (i.e 56Kbps outgoing and Kbps incoming).

23 Current AfrISPA efforts Pan African Virtual Internet Exchange (PAVIX) Interconnect African IXPs to reduce cost of regionally-bound traffic Bilateral satellite links between national IXPs First (small?) step toward continental backbone? Not popular with international backbone providers Direct fiber connectivity to every African country Compare: reliance on VSATs Cheaper in the short run But makes satellite latency permanent part of equation Problem not technical or geographic, but lack of investment Regulatory Index Neutral, non-profit ISP association in every African country Berkman Center interest?

24 Internationalized Domain Names How the DNS works Why it s so hard to add character sets to the currently-defined 7-bit ASCII LDH repertoire Application-layer solutions Who s doing what: IETF: Protocol development and standardization ICANN: Creation of non-ascii TLD registries (but only if IETF completes a standard) Registries: Deployment as SLDs and below Headaches in deploying non-ascii TLDs

25 IDN Options ASCII-compatible encoding (IDNA) Adds application-level presentation layer Uses Unicode (which has detractors) Unified directory service But: Scaling & robustness worries But: Requires massive protocol development effort New Class of DNS All common current uses on the public Internet use Class=IN But: Global compatibility problems

26 The Feedback Loop: Andrew McLaughlin