Thank you for the update CokoTracy LATNOK MRK ltd Kigali, Rwanda 2013/10/18, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>:

...

This is the old EIX WG.

aha! thanks.

randy

_______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof@ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof

Hi,

thank you Carsten. 

Want:
> —* IP interconnection

> —* Interconnecting best practices
> —* Interconnections in emerging markets
> —* Technical topics related to interconnections
> —* Voice & Data (IPX/GRX)
> * New development in the IXP landscape (not marketing <-- thin line)
* Measurement standards to compare points of interconnect

Maybe:
> —* EURO-IX slot about ISP tools and where to find IXP status 

> —* Data center ecosystem
> —* Cross border, terrestrial and undersea cables
* Peering policies best practices
* Capacity planning

Why:
> —* Regulation and the Internet


Please Explain:
> —* State of the Internet

regards
 Stefan

Regulation and the internet - has an overlap with the cooperation WG but looking at possible interconnect regulation it looks like a good item to have. State of the internet - think in the broadest scenario: how stable is the internet, is it robust enough, where might better interconnects help. example like: effect of sea cable outages and what possible solutions fully aware this requires more definition but we put it on the list of possible topics to be discussed and see if the community has some idea of it as well EP On 10/22/13 9:59 PM, Mike Hughes wrote:

On 22 October 2013 14:47, Stefan Wahl <swa@ecix.net <mailto:swa@ecix.net>> wrote:

Why: > ---* Regulation and the Internet

I think this was more about how regulation might affect interconnection - e.g. ARCEP.

Please Explain: > ---* State of the Internet

Not entirely sure, but I think this is general trends that might have a bearing on methods of interconnection?

Mike

_______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof@ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof

-- Edwin Punt <edwin@nl-ix.net> NL-ix (NeutraL internet exchange) Laan Copes van Cattenburch 73, 2585 EW, the Hague, the Netherlands +31 6 238 205 73 (GSM)

When proposing this topic for the connect-bfo, we were well aware that there is an overlap to the Coorporation WG and I think this will a topic to discuss both here on the list and and at the Bof at the next RIPE. I agree with Gordon that not discussing current topics untill this is resolved in Warsaw is a bad idea, so I thank Gordon for starting the thread about the Proposal from the EC. I believe the discussion should run in bot this Bof and the Cooperation WG and I hope the Coorporation wg will agree to that. This way we create awareness in the peering community about the topic and get some input for work with the Governance folks the other way around. Cheers, Nina Bargisen Den 22/10/2013 kl. 23.25 skrev Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>:

On 22 Oct, 2013, at 22:31, Edwin Punt - NL-ix <edwin@nl-ix.net> wrote:

...

but looking at possible interconnect regulation it looks like a good item to have.

But it might depend on whether you want to try and influence regulation or just take it as a given...

The proposed Regulation from the Commission is about interconnection...

But that might mean starting now. So do it in the context of the Cooperation WG?

Gordon

_______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof@ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof

Hi Mike, On 22.10.2013 21:59, Mike Hughes wrote:

On 22 October 2013 14:47, Stefan Wahl <swa@ecix.net <mailto:swa@ecix.net>> wrote:

Why: > —* Regulation and the Internet

I think this was more about how regulation might affect interconnection - e.g. ARCEP.

I'd assume that you have "Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes" in mind for the acronym ARCEP - the French independent administrative Authority in charge of Post and Electronic Communications. If so: what is their regulation (efforts) that might affect interconnection as you mention ARCEP explicitly? Thanks & best, -C.

On 23/10/2013 09:58, Andy Davidson wrote:

Hi, Carsten --

...

I'd assume that you have "Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes" in mind for the acronym ARCEP - the French independent administrative Authority in charge of Post and Electronic Communications. If so: what is their regulation (efforts) that might affect interconnection as you mention ARCEP explicitly? https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/103-RIPE_64_ARCEP_panel.pdf

https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/104-2012-04-16_-_ARCEP's_decision.pdf

tl;dr = Registration of interconnections may be required. Industry says that this would be a huge disincentive to peer. Be (possibly) afraid.

It sounds frightening but it hasn't been a huge amount of work for us. And to be frank we aren't telling them a lot more than they could find out themselves by getting a collection to Renesys, looking at the RIPE database and looking at PeeringDB And if it helps them to go after some of the european monopolists then I'm all for it Nigel

On 23/10/2013 11:15, Mike Hughes wrote:

On 23 October 2013 10:43, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com <mailto:nigel@titley.com>> wrote:

It sounds frightening but it hasn't been a huge amount of work for us. And to be frank we aren't telling them a lot more than they could find out themselves by getting a collection to Renesys, looking at the RIPE database and looking at PeeringDB

And if it helps them to go after some of the european monopolists then I'm all for it

Nigel, unless I missed it, I don't think there has been a talk at a RIPE meeting about what a provider has had to do to comply with the ARCEP requirement to register interconnections.

Are you volunteering? :) Could do I suppose. It isn't very exciting though is it? I do this every 6 months and I guess that anyone who is at at any peering point in France does too.

Nigel