I would like to personally thank the staff of all our brand-new peers at JINX, and the commitment shown by you. Neology thanks you for your efforts at JINX over the last 72 hours — for your support, quality technical skills, and willingness to make JINX a better place. It has been a pleasure working with you all. So far 12 peers means a 66% peering rate at JINX, and the final ones (bar the umentionable two) are simply a matter of logistics.
| 1. | 198.32.142.27 | AS 8674 | NETNOD |
| 2. | 2001:478:142::22 | AS 6083 | POSIX-V6 |
| 3. | 198.32.142.135 | AS 36889 | DotCoZa |
| 4. | 198.32.142.29 | AS 6968 | Uniforum |
| 5. | 198.32.142.33 | AS 2018 | TENET |
| 6. | 198.32.142.14/12 | AS 27322 | ISC-F Root |
| 7. | 198.32.142.26 | AS 33762 | iBurst |
| 8. | 198.32.142.21 | AS 11845 | Vox Telecom |
| 9. | 198.32.142.16 | AS 42 | Packet Clearing House |
| 10. | 198.32.142.17 | AS 3856 | Packet Clearing House |
| 11. | 198.32.142.25 | AS 10474 | MWeb |
| 12. | 198.32.142.22 | AS 6083 | POSIX |
In total — 12 Peers — less than 72 hours. That’s about a peer per 6 hours. In fact, the first 12 hours turned up the most of the local ones.
It was all as simple as finding a contact in the organisation and exchanging peering details and netblocks. Of course, has been settlement free as well, and Neology will continue to do so as long as it has capacity. And if we don’t have capacity we will endeavor to provide more capacity.
Thanks to all the new peers, you are part of the drive that is going to make INX’es in South Africa a success in the current and future tense.
It makes sense to peer settlement free at JINX. It’s good for the local internet. Except if BGP and route-filters are rocket science, as is generally the excuse toted by the “unmetionables”.
Sanity check:
It’s actually cheaper for me to get transit to the “unpeerables” via Telkom, rather than attempt to negotiate their prohibitive local peering requirements and pricing. Thanks Telkom, you are my friend. True value for money! Oh wait. Doesn’t that defeat the entire point of JINX ?
Here’s the thing — I’m paying for the SAIX local transit, and the “umnetionables” are paying for it too. So, in the end — we all paid for SAIX transit. If we don’t peer via SAIX or JINX then it would have to go SAIX, or international. So — wouldn’t it just make sense to peer at JINX? Yeah. I thought so.
Finally, many thanks to Graham, and Regardt for “making it so”. And thanks for all the V6 work as well. Neology is probably one of the better connected V6 providers at the moment, simply due to our willingness to do V6. We are hoping to establish peering with all the remaining JINX participants at this point. Basic logistics and time-zone issues appear to be the most common issue. Not “peering” agreements.
To the “umentionables” (you know who you are) … Thanks for your “cooperation” and entirely ridiculous peering policies. o_O
Hi Roelf
I have heard that SAIX *does* do settlement free peering (probably on the condition that you pay for half of the peering circuit) if they think they’re unlikely to be your upstream, and if the inbound/outbound traffic volumes are equal.
So, if by “unmentionables” you mean IS and MTN (MTNNS + Verizon SA), then I suspect they don’t buy transit from SAIX.
I do however agree that they’re been stupid, because if I’m right about this, it’s the smaller players who pay for SAIX transit, and by not peering with smaller players at JINX (or providing cheaper transit), the “unmentionables” are effectively giving the business to SAIX.
Regards,
Simeon.
Thanks for the info re: SAIX Simeon. I suppose it would make sense on large bases. However I’m simply adding then to the capacity required on that “half circuit”, so my argument holds “half” true then still 😉 Agreed on the point that it is simply bringing business to SAIX.