Re: China’s Slow Transnational Network

[Pengxiong Zhu <pzhu011 () ucr edu>]

> I know about Chinese operators who will deliberately congest peering ports
> to influence 3rd party network behaviour.

How do they deliberately congest peering ports? Do you hear from those
Chinese operators or you observe this from the traffic?

Most countries in Africa do not implement great big firewalls. Our problems
> are quite different :-\...

Not having great big firewalls tends to help :-).
>

Seems like you also think GFW is part of the cause, however, we don't have
direct evidence. Just curious, What is your "problems"? I thought it's
congestion.

Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside


On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 11:13 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:

> On 15/Mar/20 22:51, Frank Habicht wrote:
>
> > thanks for the "quotes", Mark. I agree.
> https://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2018/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic/investigating_causes_congestion_african_afrinic.pdf
> > page 23:
> > Results Overview
> > • No evidence of widespread congestion
> >    - 2.2% of discovered link showed evidence of congestion at the end of
> >      our measurements campaign
> >
> > page 34:
> > Conclusions
> > • Measured IXPs were congestion-free, which promotes peering in the
> >   region
> >
> > https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2017/papers/imc17-final182.pdf
> >
> > my conclusion: s/congestion/congestion or the lack thereof/g
> >
> > Frank Habicht
> >
> > PS: yes, i could name peers that once had inadequate links into an IXP.
> > but for how long did that happen? (yes..., any minute is too long...)
>
> Indeed.
>
> There was a time when backhaul links between ISP routers at the exchange
> point and their nearest PoP were based on E1's, wireless, e.t.c. But
> that could be said of, pretty much, every exchange point that kicked off
> inside of the last 2.5 decades.
>
> Nowadays, such links, if they exist, are the very deep exception, not
> the rule.
>
> Mark.