Internet Peering in the UKInternet Peering in the UK

Keith Mitchellkeith@linx.net

Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange

13th May 1998

SettlementSettlement

• Voice Telephony– money flows from traffic/call

originator to recipient’s carrier

• Internet– wholesale generally as above– peering interconnection has no

money flow

Reasons for non-Reasons for non-Settlement PeeringSettlement Peering

• Volume-based accounting for datagram traffic resource intensive

• Revenue flow from small players to large can:– create barrier to entry– accelerate consolidation

• LINX MoU rule

• Time for change ?

UK State of PlayUK State of Play• Most peering via LINX

– majority of members do peer– disputes unusual

• Some smaller players via 2 regional exchanges

• Limited (~5) private bi-lateral peerings

• Lots of settlement-based bi-lateral wholesale/transit

Should ISPs setShould ISPs setPeering Policy ?Peering Policy ?

• In general, YES– key autonomy issue for ISP

businesses

• BUT:– may need to regulate players with

significant market share– ideally take steps to avoid need to

do this

LINX BackgroundLINX Background

• LINX is UK national Internet Exchange Point

• Represents 47 largest UK ISPs

• Tries to encourage open peering and competition between ISPs

• Promotes self-regulation (e.g IWF), but is not “regulator”

• Channel of communication between ISPs and regulators

LINX Peering EnvironmentLINX Peering Environment

• Restricted but published & well-defined membership criteria

• Minimum of interference in member peering autonomy

• Peering agreements private matter between members

• Incentives to peer• Disincentives to not peer

LINX Peering Practice (1)LINX Peering Practice (1)

• Members must peer with >=20% of other members:

– to acquire voting rights

– to remain member after 3 months

– may reduce and/or replace above “stick” with “carrot(s)”

LINX Peering Practice (2)LINX Peering Practice (2)

• Members must:– publish peering contacts– respond to peering requests within 2

days

• Peering matrix on web page converts routing registry data into end-user friendly format– end-user consumer pressure

LINX Peering Practice (3)LINX Peering Practice (3)

• Complaints can be referred to LINX Chair

• Tiered peering used by some and works well:– exchange of subset of customer

routes/territory– multiple ASes/routing policies– or bandwidth limited

Good Peering PracticeGood Peering Practice

• “Self-regulatory” measures

• Peering policies should be:

– registered

– in public domain

– consistently & fairly implemented

– stable

Possible Peering Possible Peering IncentivesIncentives

• Additional membership status

• Additional facilities– e.g. switch ports– access to VA services

• Membership discounts

Conclusions (1)Conclusions (1)

• Open peering can promote competition

• Closed bi-lateral exchange can inhibit it

• Open peering arbiter can facilitate competition:– as L1/L2 exchange– as organisational environment

Conclusions (2)Conclusions (2)• Peering in UK at LINX is working

better than most other exchanges in other countries

• Good model, though room for development

• Market will determine when settlement or not is best

• Imposition of settlement or not would distort UK wrt global market