Until recently the African region was especially disadvantaged by the absence of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).
Compared to other continents, Africa had limited connectivity options and low initial traffic volumes. As a result, African ISPs often faced high transmission costs, even when routing local and regional traffic, due to the need to “trombone” traffic. Tromboning increases delays and can reduce the quality of the transmission.
In addition, African ISPs pay a substantial premium for overseas connections. International connectivity charges can be between 15 and 26 times greater than their equivalent local costs.[1]
In response to these pressures, IXPs are now emerging in the African region. Fifteen IXPs currently operate in Africa (see Table 1 below).[2]
Despite the vast geographical separation between African IXPs, the development of IXPs has generated operational, cost, and quality of service improvements. These improvements are primarily due to that fact that ISPs no longer need to route local traffic through an out-of-region IXP.
For African ISPs, “tromboning” adds 200 to 900 milliseconds to each transmission. This type of latency can frustrate or foreclose the development of new revenue sources (such as Internet telephony, streaming audio and video, video-conferencing, and telemedicine). With a local IXP in place two ISPs (located near to each other) can route traffic to each other’s networks in 5 to 20 milliseconds.
Routing less traffic out-of-region reduces total international line lease expenses. Finally, the ratio of outbound traffic to inbound traffic has also fallen. It is this ratio that most ISPs consider when deciding whether to peer with another ISP, or to require transit payments. Thus a reduction in outbound traffic relative to inbound traffic has the potential to significantly improve an ISP’s competitive position.
Table 1: Internet Exchange Points in Africa
| Country | City | Name | Date Started | Peers | Traffic (Mbps) |
| South Africa | Johannesburg | JINX | December 1996 | 15 | 45 [3] |
| Kenya | Nairobi | KIXP | February 2002 | 13 | 8 |
| Mozambique | Maputo | MozIX | July 2002 | 7 | 4 |
| DRC | Kinshasa | PdX | November 2002 | 4 | 1 |
| Eqypt | Cairo | CR-IX | December 2002 | 9 | |
| Nigeria | Ibadan | IBIX | March 2003 | 2 | 0.200 |
| Tanzania | Dar es Salaam | TIX | June 2003 | 10 | 1 |
| Uganda | Kampala | UIXP | July 2003 | 5 | |
| Swaziland | Mbabane | SZIX | June2004 | 3 | 0.128 |
| Rwanda | Kigali | RINEX | July2004 | 6 | 0.400 |
Source: Association of African Internet Service Provider Associations.
Endnotes:
[1] Jerome Bezzina, Interconnection Challenges in a Converging Environment — Policy Implications for African Telecommunications Regulators, The World Bank, Global Information and Communication Technologies Department (June 2005), p. 13.
[2] For more information on IXPs in Africa, see:
[3] Much of the local traffic exchanged in South Africa is via private peering links at JINX, rather than through JINX. This is an artifact of a historical anomaly called "Equivalent Line Charges", which distorts the costs of using JINX.
RELATED INFORMATION
The Role of Internet Exchange Points
Supporting IXPs in Developing Countries