This must be one of the most ridiculous requirements I ever heard of! Only two explanations:
The person making the requirement is ignorant of the fact that leased line or not, it's just a link whose only parameters are the bandwidth offered and reliability. They might want to make an argument for security Viz wireless, but we all know that satelite links are wireless and we still trust them for the global connections! ;) And in any case security has to be paramount for this IXP since it is going to be the core /IP backbone of UG.
The second argument is to tip the IXP into a profit cow for the Telcos which only makes the IXP more inaccessible to the belt tightening ISPs. The loser in all this is going to be network consumer because ISPs cannot simply take on the obscene expenses that, as we all know, come with broadband leased lines in UG. Let them poeple remember that the real reason of having the IXP is to increase local network access speed by transfering data on a fast local backbone. To realise this objective they should allow people to connect with the most affordable high speed link they can get!
Infact a requirement that makes it so expensive for network operators to hook up to the IXP only helps to fail the effort while also potraying the poeple behind the project as not "CAPABLE."
Like you folks exerted that pressure to see the birth of this IXP, it seems the game is still on to get the authorities that be to allow alternative network connections to the IXP. Let them handle the network part of it - the IP backbone (including security) and maybe only require connecting parties to come in with a reasobly fast link, say at least 2mbps link throughput, but allow them to choose the best system to use.
thnx.
Ses'
From: Kiggundu Mukasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: lug_: IXP again
Date: 25 Jun 2003 08:55:45 +0300
I heard from one party that the free leased line offer from UTL is only
one month and thus they found it hard to justify the recurrent leased
line cost to thier boss.
Why can the IXP not allow connections via other means other than leased
line? I wonder if AFSAT (which is in the same building as the IXP) has
a leased line to the IXP?
It may be easier on the budgets of smaller ISPs to put up their own
links (e.g. wireless links) to the IXP and thus have a one time cost.
With the new wirless standard that could potentially be a 54 MB/s link
from an ISP to the IXP.
My two cents
Kiggs
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
