Re: Paris D-GIX connection (fwd) (mgt@localhost, se-gix@localhost)

Bernard,

In <199408041037.MAA02890@localhost, <Bernard.Tuy@localhost wrote:

> 	Sorry not to be back sooner, but I was on vacation...so I'm now ready to
> 	answer the questions you may have to connect PIPEX to Paris D-GIX.

Thank you for this information, we appreciate getting it.

> |   > We will want to put a small Cisco 2501 router at the end of the line,
> |   > will there be any problems with housing it at the D-GIX ?
> 
> ====BT: As far as I know, at the stage we are in, the router to connect your line to
> 	is provided, configured, run ... by France Telecom.
> 	Under discussions the possibility to host in the D-GIX room routers owned and
> 	managed by someone else...but it's not the situation as we're speaking.

> ====BT: Same as above: the router will be provided and managed by France Telecom.

I am sorry, but this is completely unacceptable, and runs contrary to
common public understading of the model of the D-GIX. While we might
consider leasing the router from you (though this is not our
preferred option), if we cannot have complete administrative control
of this router, there is nothing to be gained for us from
participating in, and connecting to, the Paris "D-GIX", and PIPEX will
not be connecting.

We have a complex international network to manage with multiple entry
and exit points, and it is simply not practical to integrate a
router managed by a third party into this. For the correct routing
policies to operate, this router has to be within our Autonomous
System, and I am not prepared to have any router within our AS which
is not under our management. The whole point of the D-GIX model is
that each participant has independent control of their routing
policies.

This is not the way that the GIX works at Stockholm or Washington, I
think RENATER/FT are well out of step with current thinking here.
Perhaps you could explain some of the reaons behind your position ?

Keith Mitchell
PIPEX Technical Manager