Either way they still pay for the peering links to JINX and there aren't many Tier 1 ISPs in SA anyway, basically only SAIX, IS and Verizon. Could actually work out more expensive to peer via JINX because if ISP1 wanted to peer with ISP 2 there'd have to be one link between ISP1 and JINX and then another between ISP2 and JINX as opposed to one direct link between them which they could share the cost of. I think JINX also introduced "equivalent line charges" for the ISPs that are based there anyway.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Do you think Bafana Bafana will win tonight?
Uncapped local has arrived
- Thread starter Doctorza
- Start date
Either way they still pay for the peering links to JINX and there aren't many Tier 1 ISPs in SA anyway, basically only SAIX, IS and Verizon. Could actually work out more expensive to peer via JINX because if ISP1 wanted to peer with ISP 2 there'd have to be one link between ISP1 and JINX and then another between ISP2 and JINX as opposed to one direct link between them which they could share the cost of. I think JINX also introduced "equivalent line charges" for the ISPs that are based there anyway.
a single building
The way I envisage it not so much JINX as a single entity, but a building, so if ISP1 wanted to connect to ISP2, then they simply put a physical link between their equipment, put cable on cable tray and away she goes. Because they are in same building, they don't need to pay Telkom for that link. So its a mutaul arrangment, where you rent floor space or have your own room within a building, and all the ISPs can communicate. If they have another building in Cape Town, the owner of the building can then order a massive pipe between the 2 buildings or just upgrade depending on the needs, and each ISP can then rent bandwidth from this pipe or a mutual agreement to share costs for this link. The way Vodacom and MTN agreed, was if the one operator wanted a 2 meg link to peer, then the other operator was obliged to order another 2 meg link, so it can work. The only problem is that you would need some kind of non-profit agency or a board of ISPs to run such a building.
This is an outrage, they should skip JINX then, get a rivla building going.
The way I envisage it not so much JINX as a single entity, but a building, so if ISP1 wanted to connect to ISP2, then they simply put a physical link between their equipment, put cable on cable tray and away she goes. Because they are in same building, they don't need to pay Telkom for that link. So its a mutaul arrangment, where you rent floor space or have your own room within a building, and all the ISPs can communicate. If they have another building in Cape Town, the owner of the building can then order a massive pipe between the 2 buildings or just upgrade depending on the needs, and each ISP can then rent bandwidth from this pipe or a mutual agreement to share costs for this link. The way Vodacom and MTN agreed, was if the one operator wanted a 2 meg link to peer, then the other operator was obliged to order another 2 meg link, so it can work. The only problem is that you would need some kind of non-profit agency or a board of ISPs to run such a building.
This is an outrage, they should skip JINX then, get a rivla building going.
Think its the one issue that caused a lot of problems.
Roman4604
Executive Member
Distance "as the crow flies" is a determinant of cost for Telkom links, so if 2 ISPs are georgphically closer to each other, it more cost effective to peer directly.
It just hasnt panned out that way, most bigger ISPs are part of a larger groups and are usually situated at their parent's HQ.
Nope JINX is only for local peering. Each ISP has their own intl capacity (of course all ultimately purchased from Telkom)
This ones a no-brainer, Telkom would rather have other ISPs as customers rather than bi-lateral peers, it more profitable, and the ISPs dont have any other choice (no one else to go to!).