RE: comments on proposed setup

[Vincent Kaabunga <kavin@uol.co.ug>]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Rob Gipman wrote:

> This is not true, the IXP has to have 2 routers and 2 ether switches for
> redundancy and if a route reflector is needed then this can be one of the
> routers or an additional router.

Not necessarily, the IXP in this case is simply  a peering point and the
ISPs maintain their own BGP4 capable routers (which they probably
currently have) and simply peer with anyone of their own choice.

The drawback i foresee is that there is a lot more configuration to be
done at each ISP, but it's inexpensive to setup and requires hardly any
maintenance at the center; and it works. I know, for a fact, that the IXP
in Amsterdam started out this way, as an ether switch in the corner of the
Ripe NCC  offices.

> Ether switches can not run BGP4 unless we
> have an extreme ether switch.

MAy not need BGP4 capable devices in the center to start with.

> Have a look at the IXP white paper Barry Green
> wrote at Cisco. This document was made after investigating IXP all over the
> world on how they have the setup.

This is IXP as defined by Cisco and the way *they* would want us to do
it.

> p.s. who is Randy?

http://psg.com/~randy

> was he at our meetings?

no.

Later,
	Vincent