Internet Peering in the UK Keith Mitchell Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange 13th May 1998

Settlement 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- Settlement 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 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 set 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 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 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) 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) 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) 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 Practice “Self-regulatory” measures Peering policies should be: –registered –in public domain –consistently & fairly implemented –stable

Possible Peering Incentives Additional membership status Additional facilities –e.g. switch ports –access to VA services Membership discounts

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) 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