Notes
Tuesday, May 23 2006 -
Presentation on CABASE (GA, Gabriel Adonaylo)
The presentation dealt with the chronology of the CABASE NAP, which began its activities in 1989. In 1997, eighteen members come together because of a common interconnection need for exchanging local routes without requiring international access. In began to operate in 1998. More participants joined the initiative, and now, in 2006, there are 44 members/peers. Expenditures are shared proportionally according to a self-financing scheme.
Participants can be divided into four major groups: carriers, internet service providers, content service providers y others (special agreements, for example government organizations, RETINA).
The use of IPv6 in an experimental stage has begun. The implementation of a Root Server is also anticipated.
As to intra-regional connection, Mr. Adonaylo stated that it would be a great opportunity to optimize intra-regional routes and reduce the costs generated by international transit.
He also highlighted that there are some weaknesses that need to be addressed, such as financing and legal frameworks in different countries. There may also be certain threats such as different criteria for the application of interconnection policies, operation, quality, etc.
NAP Perú, Yuri Herrera
Mr. Herrera made a brief introduction about the NAP, which is made up by the country's most important ISPs. It was created in 2000 and began operating in 2001, with the aim of reducing costs and response times. It is a non-profit organization that covers 95% of local traffic.
They are planning to implement new applications and NTP, as well as a structure for out-of-band management so that this type of traffic does not affect the participants' normal traffic. In addition, traffic analysis support with netflow and enhanced QoS, new interfase options and high capacity core.
Mr. Alvaro Sanchez, of Antel Uruguay, asked Mr. Herrera about the methods used to control spam.
Mr. Herrera replied that the matter is still under analysis.
PTT Metro BR, Milton Kashiwakura
Mr. Kashiwakura made an introduction about the structure, which is distributed among different Data Centers interconnected to a central point so that everything functions as a single commuting matrix.
Basically it has 2 layers, with VLANs for IPv4, IPv6 and Multicast.
A SIP Phone is distributed to each participant so that they can talk to each other in case of problems.
According to its fee structure, each member pays for hosting their equipment at the data center and a cross-connect fee.
Other services are offered, such as for example access to an anycast copy of the Root Server, the AS 112 project, RIPE's RIPS project and looking glass.
NAP El Salvador, Antonio Roshard.
Mr. Roshard commented that the NAP is not yet in operation, but for some time there have been plans and involvement on the part of the country's ISPs.
There are 12 providers in the country, and some have private peering connection among them. However, others send their traffic through the NAP de las Americas.
He talked about the Information Society made up by the CNSI (Government, Private Sector and Academia). In addition to this society, there is also a highly developed banking sector. Currently, through the CNSI, they are working with the aim of achieving agreements among all the operators.
Panel on the Search for Actions and Identification of Regional Issues and the Future of NAPLA
- Milton Kashiwakura (MK)
- Gabriel Adonaylo (GA)
- Yuri Herrera (Y)
Objective: To determine which is the best way to work in order to help improve NAP operation.
GA said that he wanted to mention that, since the meeting in Lima, Peru, there was a commitment on the part of CABASE to participate in the meetings and the recently created mailing list. However, discussions did not appear to be converging on any subject, and this generated in CABASE uncertainty as to their participation. For this reason it is suggested that people present their opinions and suggest what might be implemented, needs, etc. regarding technical and administrative aspects.
MK mentioned the idea of trying to encourage countries to create new NAPs. A site should be set up in order to better organize ideas, where models could be shown that might be adapted to the peculiarities of each country. Each country would be able to express their needs and problems.
Jesús Martinez mentioned the role of NAPs in being able to negotiate better conditions for international connectivity.
On being asked whether, if there were connectivity among NAPs, these NAPs would be willing to contribute to other NAPs interconnection costs, GA replied that it is more critical to negotiate with the carriers, as between the NAPs that have been mentioned (for example BR, AR, PE, CO) there is carrier participation and there may be conflict of interests. However, what may be attempted is to achieve a better position from which to negotiate.
Presenting a brief history of NAPLA meetings, Sebastián Bellagamba stated that the initial idea was to share information on what each NAP was doing, but now we are moving on towards a different phase such as developing the region's NAPs, interconnection, etc. That's why he would like to propose that there be a more formal organization to achieve all that, such as for example the LACTLD, that has agendas, goals, etc.
Apparently the group is becoming an organization such as that, and it is therefore important to facilitate its creation. This would generate greater force for achieving the proposed challenges.
Hartmut Glaser observed that, since the one held in Buenos Aires, meetings have had greater participation, including progress reports and details, but that during this year's meeting there were not too many reports, the problem not being related to the NAPs but to the lack of cooperation on the part of the carriers.
He mentioned that apparently AHCIET was not invited, and that several organizations from different countries participated in Sao Paulo.
The most important thing in these meetings is to have more active participation from the carriers. In Brazil, frequently problems have to do with the carriers and not with those who participate in NAPs.
Antonio Roshard suggested creating a regional "snapshot," one that would identify the NAPs and problems that exist in each country. This would make it easier to talk with the carriers.
Erick Iriarte tried to explain a political issue that affects NAPs. He mentioned that last year governments signed a plan for the following years, the first goal termed infra-regional foresees improving interconnection among the region's networks and ICTs.
He added that NAPLA may be responsible for fulfilling that part of the plan.
GA observed that if there is no institutionalization there is no way to move forward.
Erick commented that if there is no decision to move in that direction, it cannot be said that institutionalization is the problem. The institutionalization of NAPLA is just one of the group's objectives. He highlighted that several political issues were discussed but without the participation of those who should have actually have been involved.
Jesús Martínez stated that it must be made clear to all that the group exists so that we can invite everyone to discuss important issues and bring up all needs and ideas at these meetings.
RE criticized the panel in a friendly manner, observing that panel members had gone beyond the meeting's agenda. He added that one of the challenges for this meeting was to achieve some concrete results, therefore it is necessary to focus on certain issues relating to the group's organization so that discussions can continue after the meeting.
Previous meetings focused mainly on the state of NAPs, but now, after some meetings, there is a need to cooperate with the creation of new NAPs. This must be one of the group's goals for next year's meeting.
Álvaro Sánchez observed that there is no NAP in Uruguay but they are following the discussion with great attention. He wanted to suggest an issue that is of interest to Uruguay, which is the possibility of developing good practices in relation to security, spam, etc.
Germán Valdez observed that they are on the right track. Since the list began there have been some good discussions. In other regions there are already NAP organizations working on different matters. LACNIC offers its support to the group for different aspects, as it has already done for other groups (LACTLD, Security, etc). He added that AHCIET was invited but they informed that they would not be able to attend.
Bill Woodcock said that the key is sharing information.
Yuri Herrera commented that NAPLA should be able to provide more efficient support to other organizations. It should have information available on websites, information that would generate knowledge for the formation of other NAPs. The space available to NAPLA should be used to share information and generate an institution.
GA said that it would be necessary to try to formalize the group's activities; to address the necessary definitions so that we will not leave without a definition on the subject.
GV stated that at the IPv6 Task Force LACNIC tested an electronic voting mechanism, which will be available for the group to use for electing their moderators. Human resources for the creation of the website will also be available.
ML added that, in addition to the website for content, there should be an on-line form to request information about the problems that exist in each country for the creation of a NAP; this would make it possible to find solutions to actual problems.
GA commented on what was said by Hartmut, and observed that although some may not have participated, we should verify why others have reduced their participation. It should be determined whether it is a budgetary problem or if there are other reasons for the lack of paraticipation.
Roberto Magin Benítez of COPACO commented that NAP PY did not participate, but that COPACO is interested in the subject.
Yuri observed that the level of participation in the mailing list is not massive nor satisfactory. It appears that organizations are not being represented, but rather that some technicians registered to find out what was being discussed. One challenge would be to increase the participation of institutions and those who represent them.
LACNIC Presentation – Germán Valdez
Mr. Valdez's presentation focused on explaining LACNIC's support and efforts towards regional interconnection projects.
He mentioned LACNIC's 2004 participation as responsible for the organization of the NAPLA meeting together with NAP Peru, a meeting that was held in the city of Lima, adding that LACNIC provides support in the form of human resources, website, mailing lists and the exchange of information.
He added that LACNIC has also participated in the +Raices Project, in association with ISC, with the aim of installing F Root Server anycast copies in the region covered by LACNIC. In addition to the copy that was already installed in Chile in December 2005 in cooperation with NIC Cl, agreements have already been signed with NAP Ar and the Technological University of Panama; conversations are also in place with NAP Co and NAP Pe.
Also, as part of its efforts for supporting the installation and operation of NAPs within the region, LACNIC has resource allocation policies that are only applicable for NAPs.
Mr. Valdez made reference to the ELAC 2007 document which mentions the goals and objectives of the region's governments for developing ICTs and the Information Society in general, to which LACNIC makes an important contribution through its support and cooperation efforts.
Telefónica Presentation – Raúl Aguirre, Horacio Tedesco (TIWS)
R. Aguirre of Telefónica made a presentation about Telefónica and its international network. He referred to the Telefónica Group and then spoke specifically of TIWS, presented a brief overview of the international network, the Internet transit service, the state of the art in relation to IPv6, and the strategy regarding the IP product. This presentation was complemented by Horacio Tedesco of TIWS Argentina, who referred to voice over IP.
PCH Traffic Measurement Presentation – Bill Woodcock
Mr. Woodcock's presentation dealt with NAP interconnection, how NAPs should be interconnected, when they should and should not be interconnected, and in what way this should be done.
Open Panel – Regional Interconnection Project. Is It Necessary?
R. Echeberría made a presentation taking up several of the topics mentioned before. He mentioned several instances of the concern that exists at government level regarding regional interconnection, such as, for example, the Rio de Janeiro Commitment, the ELAC 2007 Plan of Action, the Agreements of the Tunis phase of the WSIS, the Ministerial Meeting of Latin America and the European Union held in Lisbon, and also the one held in Vienna.
Mr. Echeberría believes that the evolution of the discussions might lead to decisions that could involve actions in reference to these issues. It is important that discussions continue among the different stakeholders, also including, in addition to NAPs, ISPs, ISP associations, academic networks, private sector associations, etc. He added that the subject should be studied seriously, that it is necessary to determine what the real possibilities of these interconnection projects are, to determine whether there are any problems or not, and to provide input to governments on these issues. He disagreed with the notion that the solution to the problems is NAP interconnection. His conclusion was that we must not delay the analysis of these issues.
Jordi stated that he shares Raúl's opinion on NAP interconnection, that the private sector should be given the opportunity to introduce improvements in relation to regional interconnection. He added that there is a confusion of terms.
O. Messano mentioned the 2005 ECOMLAC NAP interconnection Project in Peru, which was subscribed by several NAPs of the region. He observed that there were some economic problems but that, although funding is needed, the project continues. With the support of CLARA, in the short term there will be interconnection between AR and BR, and IPv6 will be used. He believes that NAPLA should be given greater participation in this matter, without creating a new institution, with the support of LACNIC.
Fred Clark of SIT of Gt mentioned the idea that a NAP should be established in the Central American region (with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB). He believes that LACNIC should be one of the institutions in charge of setting forth the know how for the bank's consideration, and he added that if there is a lack knowledge LACNIC is the right organization to orient this project. He personally believes that governments should provide economic incentives to other entities, mainly private ones, so that they can devote themselves to this.
R. Echeberría emphasized the fact that it is wrong to ignore the issue and the existing concerns, and that we should try to find solutions that will protect the interests of all the actors involved.
Michael De Leo of CISCO asked a question: Perhaps it would be worthwhile to analyze the volume of local traffic to know whether it justifies the creation of a NAP and, if so, to utilize resources for these critical points.
RE mentioned that the problem is not only economic, but that it is also about the stability of connections, and in the regional case there is a concern about where data goes, what route data follows.
Yuri observed that regional interconnection is not only about establishing interconnections among NAPs, and that if it were it would escape the scope of NAPLA.
B. Woodcock stated that some governments have already passed regulations establishing that internal connection traffic among individuals within the same country must not leave the country limits, and that this has created a de facto market for an Internet central, something that this appears to have worked without any problems.
