Re: Comments ......from Nsubuga

["nsubuga Edward" <nsubuga@sanyutel.com>]

Hi Guys
The way  I see things. We are now going in the right way, and that is the
deploying of the system.
I for one I assume what we are most interested in is to have an IXP   that
may not hinder other people joining because of the cost factor. I would use
a system that may seem to be less costly but perfoming to the set standards.
Lets take people's ideas more especially those who will be financing the
system.
I agree with last meeting's resolution of getting the cost of every system
and we evaluate which one is better on the other in terms of Cost,
perfomance and stardards.

Edward Nsubuga
Sanyutel
-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Kaabunga <kavin@uol.co.ug>
To: Lunghabo James <lunghabo@afsat.com>
Cc: techies@uixp.co.ug <techies@uixp.co.ug>
Date: Monday, April 30, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Comments ......


>
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Lunghabo James wrote:
>
>> Anyway I am just jumping into the deep end of the discussion by asking:
>>
>> 1. Why should we start off with the Randy kind of set up ?
>
>I'd prefer to call it a simple rather than Randy kind of set up.
>Anyhow, the major selling pt here is cost and simplicity.
>
>All the other scenarios we're looking at revolve around hardware at the
>IXP that has to be aquired somehow (donated or procured), rent, A/C,
>utilities, blah, blah ,blah for the IXP. And we still aren't sure how
>we're going to address these.
>
>
>> 2. If we are truly going to benefit from support offered by Cisco,
>> dont you all think that we could as well go in for the proposal
>> #2 (refer to last meeting) ?
>
>Having worked for a major donor myself, I know that there is a difference
>between "we are willing to give..." and "we are giving..."
>
>Until we have it on paper, we do not have a commitment from Cisco.
>They might, or they might not.
>And if they don't ?...
>
>> 3. Since the routers to be bought by ISP's are the same in either
>> scenario and from the best of my knowledge Cisco is willing to give
>> us the Central router, dont you think that we are better off going
>> ahead with such a setup now other than wait ?
>
>Actually, this "simple" setup uses your existing router.
>
>Later,
> Vincent
>