Let’s take Level3 as an entirely different example. They are huge they have commercial principles. They have many customers which are mostly ISP’s or companies with their own AS’s and netblocks

Are they an exchange (regardless of geographic connectivity) ?

I guess the answer is that they are a “carrier”.

My feeling is that Africa.INX’s focus is an attempt to be an African “carrier”. Not focusing on /32′s but focusing on AS’es and /16′s

Level3 doesn’t offer an “exchange” in the traditional sense, but they do colocate in hotels such as Telehouse, and Telehouse is technically a commercial Layer2 exchange.

Terraco in Cape Town is going to be hosting Telehouse Africa, and Telehouse will be providing international Layer2 to the other telehouse points, e.g. UK.

Now Telehouse is going to become an international telco as well an exchange point!

Like I said, convergence has blurred the lines, and organisations need to pick their focus and stick with it, regardless of whether they are labelled a carrier, exchange, or ISP.

Labels have become largely irrelevant. Service is what drives success.

Just as one can have multiple types of ISP’s with varying focus one can have multiple kinds of Internet Exchanges, with different fundamental business models.

Commercial Internet Exchanges, ala Telehouse or Africa.INX

Semi-commercial Internet exchanges, ala DE-CIX and JINX (created by ISP organisations).

“Communist” Internet Exchanges, instigated by governments.

Which do you prefer ? ;)

DE-CIX is less than Telehouse/JINX and more like KIXP. Arnold Nipper was at ISPA’s iWeek in 2006 and I listened to him, but my long term memory seems now also to be failing intermittently. (Perhaps my brain’s built-in flash has reached it’s wear-level limits?)

DE-CIX actually offers settlement free peering, but it doesn’t force it. They run route-reflectors that all their customers can connect to on linux boxes and Quagga, and encourage everyone to use it to simplify exchange of traffic.

Thus: A Layer3 exchange, run on commercial principles that offers settlement free peering.

Take THAT Neotel, MTN, and IS.

So — the ideal internet exchange is:

1) Commercially driven (techies, and bills need to be paid)
2) Offers settlement free peering (route reflectors are easy)
3) Offers high availability switching fabric.
4) Should be somewhat regulated in monopolistic markets such as South Africa.

If this was Germany, I wouldn’t worry too much about (4) but considering the attitude and general behaviour of even commercial players (MTN, IS, Neotel) in the South African market I consider it a requirement.

The whole Cellular interconnect debacle proves that argument.

But an exchange is an exchange, regardless of the business model driving it. Even ISPA charges for access to the exchange. E.g. they’re selling it. Does it make ISPA an ISP (they have a netblock). Does it make them a telco provider ?

Like I said, it’s not so clear cut.

Let’s take Tenet as an example. They sell internet access to universities which makes them an “ISP” by your argument.

But the organisational structure of Tenet is such that it is really a closed club of universities buying together in order to get some scale going. But I cannot myself, get a service from them. Yet they are a service provider of some sorts. But they’re not a consumer oriented service provider in the traditional sense.

Let’s take JINX as another example. They “sell” access to ports on the exchange for a fee. Technically — paying for a switchport that transits traffic to another switchport in Layer2 is providing a circuit. Even though it might only be a few millimeters from the other “circuit”. Does this then make JINX a Telco provider ? Do they need a license for that ?

These are extreme examples, and arguably not the greatest, but with the way technology operates and converges these days, is there any difference between three switchports at JINX, or three Ethernet capable microwave links ?

Not really. It’s all IP, ARP, and MAC addresses. The “distance” of the connection is irrelevant. The idea of a “circuit” is becoming less relevant. Convergence has really blurred these lines.

I guess in the end, Tenet IS an ISP then, and JINX IS a telco provider, and Africa.INX is an ISP AND a Telco provider. Does it really matter? My only requirement for an Internet Exchange is something that allows free peering. Sure there can be a fee involved for connecting. Switches cost money etc.

According to the lazyweb the ideal Internet Exchange is an Exchange that operates along some commercial principles such a DE-CIX and Telehouse. This is the model that JINX is somewhat pursuing. Create a Layer2 area where carriers can exchange traffic, but don’t create any rules. Everyone has to negotiate peering with each other.

My (somewhat communistic) view of the ideal Internet Exchange is something like KIXP (Kenya Internet Exchange) which forces settlement free peering. In effect this controls the “price” of exchanging traffic, because the exchange has some rules. Everyone peers with each other on a settlement free basis.

Of course, in South Africa, companies like MTNNS, IS and Neotel absolutely deplore the idea of settlement free peering.

But I have a feeling that if something isn’t done about the current JINX model that governement or ICASA may feel the need to intervene in the same way they have intervened with Cellular interconnect charges.

What is the difference between Interconnect rates and extortionist IP peering tactics by IS/MTN/Neotel at JINX ? What is the difference between exchange a voice call between networks and exchanging an IP packet between networks ?

Nothing.

Nevertheless, I agree that Africa INX’s focus seems different from a regular (consumer) ISP, but how does this make them an “exchange” any more than another local ISP that also provides transit to smaller providers (SAIX, IS, MTN*, etc)?

I think the crux of my argument is that selling a layer 2 circuit to JINX/CINX makes you a telco, while selling layer 3 access through JINX/CINX makes you an ISP. Nether activity justifies calling yourself an “exchange”, unless you disagree with the peering/Internet exchange community about what the world “exchange” means.

The then VANSA (now ISPA) fought the battle against SAIX’s monopoly view if I recall correctly.

Interesting enough SAIX is actually still listed on many “lists of internet exchanges” as an actual Internet exchange for South Africa.

Their target market is not customers. Their target market is ISP’s.

Consider something like Telehouse, which is essentially a carrier and ISP hotel. Their services and space is paid for by their customers which are carriers and ISP’s.

I guess it depends on your definition of an ISP. Is an ISP a company that provides services to customers ? What about an ISP that provides services to customers and ISPs ?

What about company that only provides services to ISP’s ? I think there is a difference.