New subject: [MIXP Discussion] Re: [af-ix] Fwd: PCH peering survey 2016

16 Sep 2016


      Dear All,
Please take some time to go through this survey which shall help us
contribute towards the development of IXPs in the AFRICAN region :)
Regards,
Keessun
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[af-ix] Fwd: PCH peering survey 2016
Date: 	Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:37:38 +0200
From: 	Nishal Goburdhan nishal@ispa.org.za
To: 	af-ix af-ix@af-ix.net
hi there af-ix.
could you help circulate this survey request within your respective IX 
communities please.
the results of the last survey are still used as reference matter  (i 
know that both michuki and i use “the 99% don’t need a peering 
agreement statistic all the time) and we’d really like to update the 
data.
thanks in advance,
—n.
Forwarded message:
...
From: Bill Woodcock woody@pch.net
To: afnog@afnog.org
Subject: [afnog] PCH peering survey 2016
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:04:16 -0700
Background:
Five years ago PCH conducted the first, and to date only, 
comprehensive survey characterizing Internet peering agreements.
The document that resulted can be found here: 
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.... 
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf
That document was one of the principal inputs to an important document 
that the OECD publishes every five years, one that recommends 
communications regulatory policy to OECD member nations: 
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/IC... 
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/ICCP/CISP(2011)2/FINAL&docLanguage=En
The survey had several useful findings which hadn’t previously been 
established as fact—most notably the portion of peering 
relationships that are “handshake” agreements, without written 
contract. These findings have improved the regulatory environments in 
which many of us operate our networks.
At the time of the 2011 survey, we committed to repeating the survey 
every five years, so as to provide an ongoing indication of the 
direction peering trends take. It’s now five years later, so we’re 
repeating the survey.
The survey is global in scope, and our goal is to reflect the 
diversity of peering agreements in the world; we’re interested in 
large ISPs and small ISPs, ISPs in Afghanistan and in Zimbabwe, 
bilateral agreements and multilateral, private and public. Our intent 
is to be as comprehensive as possible. In 2011, the responses we 
received represented 86% of all of the world’s ISPs and 96 
countries. We would like to be at least as inclusive this time.
Privacy:
In 2011, we promised to collect the smallest set of data necessary to 
answer the questions, to perform the analysis immediately, and not to 
retain the data after the analysis was accomplished. In that way, we 
ensured that the privacy of respondents was fully protected. We did as 
we said, no data was leaked, and the whole community benefited from 
the trust that was extended to us. We ask for your trust again now as 
we make the same commitment to protect the privacy of all respondents, 
using the same process as last time. We are asking for no more data 
than is absolutely necessary. We will perform the analysis immediately 
upon receiving all of the data. We will delete the data once the 
analysis has been performed.
The Survey:
We would like to know the following five pieces of information 
relative to each Autonomous System you peer with:
• Your ASN
• Your peer’s ASN (peers only, not upstream transit providers or 
downstream customers)
• Whether a written and signed peering agreement exists (the 
alternative being a less formal arrangement, such as a "handshake 
agreement")
• Whether the terms are roughly symmetric (the alternative being 
that they describe an agreement with different terms for each of the 
two parties, such as one compensating the other, or one receiving more 
or fewer than full customer routes)
• Whether a jurisdiction of governing law is defined
• Whether IPv6 routes are being exchanged (this year, we’ll still 
assume that IPv4 are)
The easiest way for us to receive the information is as a tab-text or 
CSV file or an Excel spreadsheet, consisting of rows with the 
following columns:
Your ASN: Integer
Peer ASN: Integer
Written agreement: Boolean
Symmetric: Boolean
Governing Law: ISO 3166 two-digit country-code, or empty
IPv6 Routes: Boolean
For instance:
42 <tab> 715 <tab> false <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr>
42 <tab> 3856 <tab> true <tab> true <tab> us <tab> true <cr>
We are asking for the ASNs only so we can avoid double-counting a 
single pair of peers when we hear from both of them, and so that when 
we hear about a relationship in responses from both peers we can see 
how closely the two responses match, an important check on the quality 
of the survey.  As soon as we've collated the data, we'll strip the 
ASNs to protect privacy, and only the final aggregate statistics will 
be published. We will never disclose any ASN or any information about 
any ASN. We already have more than 8,000 ASN-pair relationships 
documented, and we hope to receive as many more as possible. We'd like 
to finish collecting data by the end of September, about two weeks 
from now.
If you’re peering with an MLPA route-server, you’re welcome to 
include just the route-server’s ASN, if that’s easiest, rather 
than trying to include each of the peer ASNs on the other side of the 
route-server. Either way is fine.
If all of your sessions have the same characteristics, you can just 
tell us what those characteristics are once, your own ASN once, and 
give us a simple list of your peer ASNs.
If your number of peers is small enough to be pasted or typed into an 
email, rather than attached as a file, and that’s simpler, just go 
ahead and do that.
If you have written peering agreements that are covered by 
non-disclosure agreements, or if your organizational policy precludes 
disclosing your peers, but you’d still like to participate in the 
survey, please let us know, and we’ll work with whatever information 
you’re able to give us and try to ensure that your practices are 
statistically represented in our results.
If you're able to help us, please email me the data in whatever form 
you can. If you need a non-disclosure, we're happy to sign one.
Finally, if there are any other questions you’d like to see answered 
in the future, please let us know so that we can consider addressing 
them in the 2021 survey. The question about IPv6 routing in this 
year’s survey is there because quite a few of the 2011 respondents 
asked us to include it this time.
Please respond by replying to this email, before the end of September.
Thank you for considering participating. We very much appreciate it, 
and we look forward to returning the results to the community.
                            -Bill Woodcock
                             Executive Director
                             Packet Clearing House

_______________________________________________
af-ix mailing list
af-ix@af-ix.net
http://af-ix.net/mailman/listinfo/af-ix_af-ix.net

[MIXP Discussion] Fwd: [af-ix] Fwd: PCH peering survey 2016