Republika e Kosovës
Republika Kosova-Republic of Kosovo
Autoriteti Rregullator i Telekomunikacionit
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
Regulativni Autoritet Telekomunikacije
CONSULTANT’S DRAFT
Request for Stakeholder Comments on
Establishing an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) in
Kosovo
April 01, 2010
The address for responses to this document is:
Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA)
Qyteza Pejton, Street Pashko Vasa No. 12
Prishtina 10000
Alternatively, e-mail responses may be sent to the Authority’s e-mail
address at CONSULT@art-ks.org
The deadline for responses is 4:00 pm on Monday, April 16, 2010
Purpose: Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Table of Contents
1.
2.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2
Scope of this Request for Comments .............................................................................. 4
Request for Comments............................................................................................................... 5
2.1
General Questions .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2
Organizational Questions ................................................................................................. 6
2.3
Technical Questions ........................................................................................................... 8
2.4
Financial Questions ............................................................................................................ 9
2.5
Peering Questions ............................................................................................................. 11
Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................... 12
Appendix 2. References................................................................................................................... 15
2
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
1. Introduction
1.1
Background
The Internet is an essential tool for communication, commerce, and development of a
“knowledge-based” society in today’s globalized world. A strong ICT sector is
particularly important to Kosovo’s future growth and development. Development of
Kosovo’s ICT sector depends on the ability of the national Internet infrastructure to
provide reliable and affordable access to high quality broadband capacity. An IXP is
a key component of a country’s Internet infrastructure that can help to increase the
affordability and quality of Internet services.
At present all Internet traffic transmitted between Kosovo ISPs must enter the
Internet cloud using international transit links to other countries. These include links
to Serbia, Macedonia, and Albania, among others. An IXP is a simple, resourceefficient means of achieving interconnection among ISPs. It keeps local Internet
traffic “local,” by enabling ISPs to exchange local Internet traffic directly instead of
using international links.
In other markets, an IXP has been shown to have a number of benefits:

Cost – Direct traffic exchange lowers an ISP's average per-bit delivery cost of
service;

Technical Quality – Direct traffic exchange makes a faster and more direct
route from one local Internet location to another, reducing latency and other
technical quality defects;

Security and Privacy – Keeping local traffic “local” within national boundaries
reduces privacy and security risks inherent in sending sensitive data across
national borders over multiple hops;

Resiliency – An IXP facilitates establishment of routing arrangements among
ISPs to reduce congestion and provide redundant back-up paths in the event
of upstream network outages;

Response and Restoration – An IXP also helps coordinate local security (e.g.,
intrusion detection), infrastructure protection, and emergency response
activities (e.g., CERT);

Market Development – An IXP can promote local ICT service market
development for co-location services (e.g., hosting, cached services, etc.) and
services that require high bandwidth and low latency (e.g., real-time and
multimedia services); and

Services to ISPs – An IXP can provide services to its members (e.g., traffic
reporting)

Community – An IXP can provide a nexus for education and research projects
that help develop the local Internet community and advance the ICT market.
The 2007 Telecommunications Sector Policy of the Government of Kosovo, as
approved and adopted by Government Decision No. 02/255 of June 13, 2007 (the
Sector Policy), directs the TRA at the earliest possible date to take the necessary
initiatives for the creation of an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) in Kosovo (see Sector
3
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Policy, §§ 3.1.3.a2, 3.1.3.a3, and 3.6.3.b) and to coordinate its efforts with the policies
of Government and the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) (section
3.6.1.d). Government, through the Ministry, initially represented to the European
Commission that an IXP would be established in Kosovo by 2009. Completion of an
Internet Exchange Point by the end of calendar 2010 is part of the TRA’s 2010 Annual
Work Plan approved by Parliament.
Accordingly, the TRA has determined that an Internet Exchange Point should be
established in Kosovo by the end of 2010.
The Authority believes this may be a regional opportunity for Kosovo since in the
region only Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovenia have established IXPs. See
table, below:
Structure of Existing IXPs in SEE
Country
IXP
Structure
Bulgaria
 BIX.BG
(Bulgarian
Internet
eXchange)
 Operator-neutral commercial and for-profit company
(BIX.BG Ltd.)
Croatia
 CIX (Croatian
Internet
eXchange)
 Non-profit service operated by University Computing
Centre of the University of Zagreb; open to all: i) ISPs,
ii) non-commercial networks that provide ISP services,
and iii) private networks that provide ISP services in
Croatia; founding members: AT&T Global Network
Services Croatia, Croatian Academic and Research
Network (CARNet), Croatian Radio and Television,
Croatian Telecom, ISKON Internet and VIP-NET GSM
Hungary
 BIX (Budapest
Internet
eXchange)
 Sponsored by the Council of Hungarian Internet Service
Providers (Internet Szolgáltatók Tanácsa or ISzT), a
nonprofit industry associations of ISPs
Slovenia
 SIX (Slovenian
Internet
Exchange)
 Non-profit service managed by the Academic and
Research Network of Slovenia (ARNES), a public
academic institute with a Board appointed by
government; open to all licensed ISPs and registered
Internet content providers in Slovenia
Albania
No IXP
Serbia
No IXP
Macedonia
No IXP
Bosnia
No IXP
1.2
Scope of this Request for Comments
A key TRA role under section 4.1 of the 2002 Telecommunications Law, as amended,
is to implement the national telecommunications sector policy establishment by the
4
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Government.1 Additionally, this document is based on section 10; paragraph (1) of
the Telecommunications Law.
A stakeholder meeting, to which all the Internet Service Providers licensed by the
TRA to establish international links in Kosovo were invited, was held by the TRA at
its offices on Tuesday, March 2, 2010. Further to that meeting, and in fulfillment of
its consultative obligations, the TRA has adopted and hereby has issued this Request
for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an Internet Exchange Point (IXP) in
Kosovo.
The TRA invites comments from all interested stakeholders on the following
questions, the answers to which will help the Authority identify and refine the
relevant policy and regulatory issues that must be addressed to establish an IXP.
The contents of individual submissions will be held in confidence but the answers
may be summarized and included by the TRA in other publications. Please see the
notes following Questions 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.
2. Request for Comments
2.1
General Questions
2.1.1 Please estimate in Mbps the total Internet traffic that your company carried in
calendar 2009 and what portion (reported in Mbps or as a percentage) of that
traffic was intra-Kosovo traffic (i.e., where the originator and recipient of the
message were located at Internet locations within Kosovo).
[N.B. – Please be aware that the TRA will not publicly report individual
answers to this question but will compile this data for the entire market and
release or disclose it only in the aggregate.]
2.1.2 With respect to the international links maintained by your company, please
identify the:
(a) Destination countries,
(b)
Technology employed,
(c)
Installed capacity, and
(d) Capacity in use.
2.1.3 Describe any potential economic, technical, security or other benefits to your
company that you foresee will happen when you connect to an IXP?
1
The Law on Telecommunications adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo on December 10, 2002, (the
“Telecommunications Law”) regulates the communications sector in Kosovo. The Law entered into force with
UNMIK Regulation No. 2003/16 promulgated by the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) in
May 2003. This Law established the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (the ‘’TRA’’) which has
responsibility for the regulation of the telecommunications sector of Kosovo, during its transition from a
monopoly supplied utility to a competitive industry. On June 13, 2008, the Assembly adopted a set of
amendments to the Telecommunications Law removing all references to UNMIK, clarifying certain institutional
aspects and strengthening the independence of the NRA.
5
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
2.1.4 Describe any potential economic, technical, security or other benefits or costs
that you foresee that an IXP could bring for the Internet market and broader
ICT sector in Kosovo.
2.1.5 What potential risks are there with the creation of an IXP?
2.1.6 Describe the preferred circumstances and conditions under which your
company would participate in an IXP.
2.1.7 Should the TRA mandate that ISPs be required to participate in the IXP? If not,
why not?
2.1.8 If so, should the mandate apply to:
2.2
(a)
All ISPs;
(b)
All ISPs licensed to establish international links;
(c)
All ISPs that have established international links?
Organizational Questions
There are a variety of institutional models that have been adopted to create
and operate IXPs worldwide.2 These include:

Nonprofit industry associations of ISPs

University or academic institutes

Government bodies (e.g., regulator)

Operator-neutral commercial for-profit companies
2.2.1 In your view, what is the optimal organizational model for the establishment
of an IXP in Kosovo?
2.2.2 Why?
2.2.3 With respect to the entity that would manage and operate an IXP in Kosovo:
(a) What type of entity is most appropriate to manage and operate an IXP in
Kosovo; (such may be government, association, university (public or private),
or private company)
(b)
Do you have a recommendation for an appropriate candidate entity?
(c)
If so, please explain the basis for this recommendation.
2.2.4 Do you believe that the TRA by rule or regulation should set the basic
principles and minimum requirements for the structure and operation of an
IXP?
2.2.5 Do you agree that an IXP in Kosovo should function based upon the basic
principles listed below:
(a)
Inclusive (open to all qualifying ISPs)?
2
The nonprofit ISP industry association and the academic institute are the models most commonly employed
in Europe. Operator-neutral commercial for-profit companies are prevalent in the United States.
6
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
(b)
Technically reliable?
(c)
Operator neutral (not a competitor in the market for retail Internet
services)?
(d)
Based on agreed-upon, open standards
(e)
ISP users participate in governance?
If you answer to the question is “no” for any of the bulleted items above, why
not?
2.2.6 Do you believe there are additional basic principles to those listed in 3.2.5 that
should be included? If you do, what are they?
2.2.7 What eligibility criteria should be established for ISP participation in an IXP,
and why?
2.2.8 Should the IXP web site be public or for ISP members-only?
2.2.9 With respect to the operating policies of an IXP:
(a)
Should interconnection rules to define the terms and conditions under
which an ISP is permitted to route their Internet traffic to another ISP's
network via the IXP be set:

by the IXP

by the ISPs per bilateral agreements

by the TRA
(b)
Should routing control over the traffic to the IXP be performed by IXP or
by ISPs (or both)?
(c)
Should transit traffic (e.g., ) be permitted through the IXP and, if so,
under what terms and conditions?
(d) Should an IXP be limited exclusively to capturing only the content of a
member’s data traffic that is required for the conduct of traffic analysis
and control?
(e)
What additional confidentiality rules should apply to the IXP?
(f)
Should the IXP collect and report technical information to members? If
so, what type (e.g., ASN paths, looking-glass sites)?
(g)
What types of technical information collected by the IXP should be
reported to the TRA?
(h)
Should any, and if so what types, of technical information collected by
the IXP should be made publicly available?
(i)
What should traffic filtering policies be for the IXP?
(j)
Who should set those policies? (e.g. TRA, IXP, ISPs, other?)
7
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
(k)
What should the IXP role be in the event of security problems,
infrastructure failures, routing equipment failures, or software
configuration mistakes?
(l)
What additional security response services should the IXP provide to the
ISP participants?
(m) What limitations of liability should there be for IXP operations?
2.3
(n)
What are appropriate access rules for ISP member staff access to the IXP
premises, if any?
(o)
What additional technical support services should the IXP provide to the
ISP participants?
Technical Questions
2.3.1 What technical model should be used –
(a)
Layer 3, in which ISP members exchange traffic inside the router located
on the IXP, or
(b)
Layer 2, in which IXP provides switching connectivity and ISP members
retain full control over routing policy?
Please state the reasons for your answer.
2.3.2 What protocols should be used (e.g., BGP, other)?
3.3.3 Should the IXP be connected to the Internet other than through its ISP
members?
2.3.4 What should be the content of the Internet Routing Registry (IRR) set up at
the IXP?
2.3.5 What are the optimal means of establishing physical connectivity between
IXP and each ISP?

Fibre, wireless, etc.

Existing ISP platforms or new facilities
2.3.6 Are there any circumstances where bandwidth and/or download restrictions
should be imposed on ISP participation in an IXP?
2.3.7 Should a minimum bandwidth be required for ISP links to the IXP?
2.3.8 Should the IXP be required to provide redundancy and increased fault
tolerance (e.g., each ISP connects to a single switch/router or, to provide fault
tolerance, to multiple switches/routers located at IXP)?
2.3.9 Should the IXP be required to implement a denial of service (DOS) attack
detection system at the IXP switch(es)/router(s)?
2.3.10 For IXP address space, should the IXP obtain separate address space (e.g., /24
network) or use address space from an existing ISP(s)?
8
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
2.3.11 What are the key required elements and their specifications for physical
security of the IXP space?

24h CCTV,

Locks,

Controlled access for IPX members,

Space requirements for cabling, racks and equipments,

Fire control,

Air-conditioning,

Power supply/backup,

Other (please specify).
2.3.12 Should a time server or other services for ISPs be provided by the IXP (please
specify)?
2.4
Financial Questions
2.4.1 Based on your understanding of the intra-Kosovo traffic volumes generated
by Kosovo ISPs, do you believe an IXP would lead to a cost savings, increased
cost, or be cost neutral for your company? (Please specify the basis for your
answer in financial figures.)
2.4.2 Do you believe that at present there is a market in Kosovo for more than one
IXP?
2.4.3 Based on your previous answers, please estimate the capital costs required to
establish an IXP?
a.
Cost of equipment for the core of the IXP (refer to section 3.3)
b.
Preparing the space
c.
Furnishing the space:
d.
e.
i.
Backup power,
ii.
Air-conditioning,
iii.
Equipment cabinets, and
iv.
Relevant security fixtures.
Link provision from ISP to IXP
i.
Router,
ii.
Fiber or other link.
Other (please specify)
2.4.4 How many staff do you estimate the IXP will require?
9
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
2.4.5 Would your company consider providing technical advice and assistance to
the IXP at no cost?
2.4.6 Based on your previous answers and your understanding of your own
operations, please estimate the costs for annual IXP operations:
a.
rent of space,
b.
electricity,
c.
staff salaries (how many?)
d.
security, and
e.
insurance costs
2.4.7 How should the financing of IXP CAPEX requirements be arranged?
a.
In the case of an academic institution or institute:
i.
A PPP option using a mix of grant and Government funds?
ii.
A PPP option using a mix of grant and Government funds, plus ISP
contributions?
iii.
Wholly subsidized by Government?
b.
In the case of a private sector association, private capital plus a partial
subsidy?
c.
A private, for-profit company using its own capital?
2.4.8 Under what circumstances would your company contribute to funding the
capital costs of establishing an IXP under the options described in 3.4.6(a) and
(b)?
2.4.9 How should the financing of IXP OPEX requirements be arranged? Please
specify
a.
OPEX recovered based on a monthly, cost-based, per capita subscription
fee for all ISPs connecting to IXP?
b.
OPEX recovered based on a monthly, cost-based, subscription fee
apportioned among ISP members based on relative traffic volumes of
each ISP connecting to IXP?
c.
OPEX recovered based on a combination of a monthly flat, cost-based,
per capita subscription fee for all ISPs connecting to IXP, plus an
additional fee to be based on relative traffic volumes of each ISP?
d.
OPEX costs for a maximum initial period of two years from start-up to
be publicly subsidized, and then reverting to one of the options
described above?
e.
Other?
2.4.10 Should “in-kind” contributions by ISPs be permitted as a substitute for fees
and, if so, under what circumstances?
10
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
2.4.11 While payment for the cost and maintenance of the link between the ISP
network and the IXP (including a redundant link if required) is usually the
responsibility of each ISP member, some IXPs have adopted policies to
smooth these costs so that each member pays the same amount to access the
IXP.
Should TRA consider requiring this approach for the Kosovo IXP?
2.4.12 Does the future potential exist for the IXP to serve as a sales point for the
provision by Tier 1 ISPs of connectivity to smaller ISPs?
If not, why not?
Should such activity be prohibited or restricted?
2.5
Peering Questions
2.5.1 Should all ISPs that connect to the IXP be required to peer with every other
connected ISP?
2.5.2 What are appropriate peering rules for the IXP? Should all ISPs connected to
the IXP be required to peer with every other connected ISP:
(a)
Under a Mandatory Multilateral Peering Agreement (MMLPA) to be
established by the IXP with TRA approval?
(b)
Under Bilateral Peering (BLP) arrangements, the commercial terms of
which the ISPs would be free to negotiate, provided they are
completed within a set time period?
(c)
Under Bilateral Peering (BLP) arrangements, where the minimum basic
commercial parameters required for peering arrangements are set by
the TRA by rule or regulation and the actual negotiation is lefty to
negotiations between ISPs?
Please explain the reasons for your answer.
2.5.3 Where there are significant asymmetries (please specify a qualifying
asymmetry in terms of traffic ratio or other measure) between potential
peering partners should “paid peering” arrangements be an option?
2.5.4 If so, under what conditions would paid peering be an appropriate approach?
11
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Appendix 1.
Term
Autonomous
system
number
Glossary of Terms
Acrony
m
ASN
Backbone
Border
Gateway
Protocol
Definition
Unique ASNs are allocated to Internet operators by the regional
internet registries (RIRs) for use in multipath routing. An ASN is
only issued when an institution demonstrates the means to
maintain an independent routing policy. This entails having
direct interconnections with at least two other, similarly
independent external network entities. In the widest sense, an
autonomous system is a connected group of one or more IP
prefixes run by one or more network operators, with a single and
clearly defined routing policy.
The trunk routes of a network used as the path for transporting
traffic between different networks. Backbones can be the physical
telecommunication infrastructure or the Internet circuits
established over them by a particular Internet operator.
BGP
A protocol for exchanging routing information between gateway
hosts (each with its own router) in a network of autonomous
systems. The routing table contains a list of known routers, the
addresses they can reach, and a cost metric associated with the
path to each router so that the best available route is chosen.
Bits per second bps
The number of bits passing a point every second. The
transmission rate for digital information, that is, a measure of
how fast data can be sent or received. Often expressed for
broadband links as Megabits per second (Mbps), where a
Megabit equals one million bits, or Gigabits per second (Gbps),
where a Gigabit equals one billion bits.
Broadband
A high-speed data connection.
Connection
redundancy
Two or more physically separate connections via different
network providers. Redundancy ensures continued links to the
Internet in the event of one connection going down.
Dark fibre
The maintenance of optical fibre transmission capacity between
customer locations in which the light for the fibre is provided by
the customer rather than the provider of the fibre optic cable.
Fibre optic
cable
A technology using glass fibre for the transmission of data. A
signal is imposed on the fibre via pulses (modulation) of light
from a laser or light-emitting diode (LED). Because of its high
bandwidth and lack of susceptibility to interference, fibre optic
cable is used in high-capacity long-haul or noisy applications.
Hop
An intermediate connection in a string of connections linking
two network devices on the Internet. Each time a data packet is
forwarded to the next router, a hop occurs. The more hops, the
more latency, i.e., the number of milliseconds it will take for a
packet of data to go from source to destination.
12
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Interconnectio
n
Any direct connection between two networks—private or
commercially operated Internet-based networks or telecom
networks of fixed or mobile operators. Cost of interconnection is
usually incurred by the parties on either end of the connection.
International
gateway
Technically, a facility to consolidate and share the cost of
international links.
Internet
A global mesh of computer networks using TCP/IP. The
Internet’s national and international backbones are high-speed,
fibre trunk lines owned by telecommunication companies.
National Tier-1 service providers aggregate data traffic and pass
it over the backbones and work with local service providers, who
connect to customers via digital links or modems.
Internet
routing
registry
IRR
A globally distributed routing information database that ensures
stability and consistency of Internet-wide routing by sharing
information between network operators. The IRR comprises
several databases in which network operators publish their
routing policies and announcements. In addition to making
Internet topology visible, the IRR is used by network operators to
look up peering agreements, determine optimal policies, and
configure their routers.
Internet
service
provider
ISP
Licensed organizations that provide Internet access services. ISPs
purchase bandwidth from upstream companies, which have
links to the Internet and then sell that bandwidth to consumers
and businesses in smaller units.
Internet
exchange
point
IXP
Also called IX, EP, NAP, or peering point. Both a physical
networking location and a logical networking strategy, which
facilitates interconnection between Internet-based networks.
Internet
network
A collection of devices interconnected via TCP/IP. Networks
may be commercially run by an ISP or run by an organizations
for internal purposes, such as company-wide and academic
networks.
Latency
A synonym for delay and an expression of how much time it
takes for a packet of data to get from one designated point to
another in a network.
Leased line
A telecommunications circuit usually rented from a telecom
operator to connect two or more locations. Where regulations
allow and the physical location of the two points to be connected
makes it feasible, Internet providers may establish their own
wireless, cable, or fibre link, thereby eliminating the need to lease
a circuit from a third party.
Looking glass
A web-based connection to a router that enables administrators
of other networks to see a network’s routing information.
Looking-glass information may or may not be made available to
the broader public.
Metropolitan
area network.
MAN
Usually a fibre-optic ring spanning a large city.
13
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Multilateral
peering
agreement.
MLPA
An agreement by networks connecting to an IXP to exchange
data with all other networks connected to the peering point.
Often mandatory when joining an IXP.
Paid Peering
A peering arrangement in the usual definition where router
configurations, exchange point arrangements, and all peering
interconnections logistics proceed as under a free peering
arrangement, but where a settlement fee is paid based either on
total traffic or the net traffic asymmetry, or where transport costs
are apportioned asymmetrically. Paid peering is sometimes
positioned as a stepping stone toward establishing free peering
so that settlement fees are no longer required once prerequisites
are met
Peering
A zero-compensation arrangement in which network operators
agree to exchange traffic at no charge. Common practice where
the networks in question have roughly the same characteristics
and traffic volumes, meaning a net financial burden from traffic
flow between them is likely to be small. The process by which a
network qualifies for peering is usually privately negotiated
based on market position, network coverage, volume of traffic,
range of services provided, and network reliability. In general,
peering only takes place when one of the two networks would
not be significantly disadvantaged by termination of the link
between them.
Route server
One or more IXP BGP route server peers that collect and
redistribute IXP member routes
Transmission
control
protocol and
Internet
protocol
TCP/IP
The two protocols that form the basis of communication across
the Internet. Currently most of the Internet is based on version 4
of the IP protocol, but as the free pool of IPv4 addresses
approaches capacity, there are growing calls to accelerate IPv6
deployment.
Terrabit
One thousand Gigabits.
Transit
An arrangement in which a network sells access to another
network to enable its connection to a third party network. Transit
charges are set by negotiation and often are not disclosed
publicly. Transit arrangements typically provide access to an
array of networks not limited to one country. In many cases one
Internet transit arrangement with a large network can provide a
small, remote network with access to the rest of the world.
Virtual private VPN
network
An encrypted channel between two end points on the Internet
that provides secure communications.
14
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
Appendix 2. References
-
Mike Jensen, Promoting the Use of Internet Exchange Points: A Guide to Policy, Management and
Technical Issues, Internet Society, (2007), available at
www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/promote-ixp-guide.pdf.
-
Steve Gibbard, Economics of Peering, Packet Clearing House/Steve Gibbard Consulting
(October, 2004)
-
Bevil M. Wooding, Benefits of Internet Exchange Points for the Caribbean, Packet Clearing House
(PCH)/Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) (2006)
-
Harry Bouwman, Heleen De Vlaam & Marieke Fijnvandraat, Internet and Interconnection
Regulation: Case Studies from the USA, the UK and the Netherlands, Communications & Strategies,
no. 47, 3rd quarter 2002, p. 147 (Delft University of Technology)
-
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Internet Traffic Exchange
and the Development of End-to-end International Telecommunication Competition,
DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2001)5/FINAL (2002) (OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, Working Party
on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policies)
-
Bill Woodcock, Good Practices in Internet Exchange Point Documentation and Measurement, OECD
DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2007)9 (2007), (OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry,
Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, Working Party on
Communication Infrastructures and Services Policies), available at
www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/FREREFCORPLOOK/NT00000F9A/$FILE/JT03226139.
PDF
-
Internet Society, Briefing Paper: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) (2008), available at
www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs
-
Mike Jensen, Interconnection Costs, Document WSIS-II/PC-3/CONTR/94-E (Association for
Progressive Communications (APC) 28 September 2005)
-
Bill Woodcock, Tutorial on the Design and Construction of Local and Regional Exchange Facilities,
Version 0.3, Packet Clearing House (March, 2001)
-
Steffen Lippert and Giancarlo Spagnolo, Internet Peering as a Network of Relations, Governance
and the Efficiency of Economic Systems (GESY) Discussion Paper 191 (November 2006)
-
Sam Paltridge, Internet Access for Development, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry (DSTI), (June 2009)
-
Michuki Mwangi, Internet Exchange Points: Lowering Costs and Promoting Internet Development,
presented at OECD Conference: Policy Coherence in the Application of ICT for Development,
Paris, France (September 2009), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/15/43759912.pdf
-
U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
V, Focus Group 4: Interoperability, Service Provider Interconnection for Internet Protocol Best Effort
Service (2001), available at www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/backbone.htm
-
Interisle Consulting Group, LLC, Interconnection and Peering Among Internet Service Providers: A
Historical Perspective (2005), available www.interisle.net/sub/ISP%20Interconnection.pdf
-
ColoSource, Internet eXchange Points, available at http://www.colosource.com/ix.asp
-
European Internet Exchange Association, 2009 Report on European IXPs (23 October 2009),
available at www.euro-ix.net/resources/reports/euro-ix_report_2009.pdf
15
Request for Stakeholder Comments on Establishing an IXP in Kosovo
-
Z. Morley Mao, Lecture 5: Internet AS relationships, Routing Policy on Internet Paths (Jan 20, 2005),
available at www.eecs.umich.edu/~zmao/eecs598-4/notes/Lecture5.pdf
-
Croatian Internet Exchange, materials at www.cix.hr/cix_o_usluzi.html?&L=1
-
Slovenian Internet Exchange, materials at www.arnes.si/english/six.html
-
University of Zagreb, University Computing Centre, Policy of the Croatian Internet Exchange
(CIX) National Centre for the Mutual Internet Traffic Exchange (2007), available at
www.cix.hr/cix_o_usluzi.html?&L=1
-
Bulgarian Internet Exchange (BIX), BIX.BG – Concise Company Presentation (2009), available at
www.bix.bg
-
Budapest Internet Exchange, Charter Rules of Operation and Use of the BIX (2009), available at
www.bix.hu/index.php3?lang=en&page=charter.
-
William B. Norton, A Business Case for ISP Peering in 2004 (2004), available at
www.drpeering.net/a/Internet_Peering_White_Papers_files/
16