[SANOG] Telecom requirements for local Internet access in India and US based Citrix solutions
netfortius at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 16:47:13 UTC 2015
I am not sure how else to explain. I was referenced to the Indian Telegraph
Act 1885, and amendments to such brought forth by the India Department of
Telecommunications, in time, which, in what I am interested in, allegedly
require local Internet access for all employees in India. This is not
possible if using thin clients hosted in US-based DCs, designed to access
the Internet in the US, unless those specific to India hosted virtual
desktops being configured to "go back" to India (via some creative routing
and/or proxy pacs, with proxy servers hosted in India) to comply with the
alleged requirement. If the latter is true, then the bad performance I was
alluding to: India employee accessing virtual desktop in the US DC, which
then sends them back to India for Internet access.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:50 PM, <dp at datasoftcomnet.com> wrote:
> Hello Stefan,
> I can help you on the technical advice.
> Many of our clients access servers in the US on a continuous basis. You
> get excellent bandwidth and uptime in India, particularly in the cities.
> However I did not understand the India-US-india round trip part.
> Regards DP
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos if any.
> -------- Original message 9/02/2015 23:57 (GMT+05:30)
> To: sanog at sanog.org
> Subject: [SANOG] Telecom requirements for local Internet access in India
> and US based Citrix solutions
> Hi, everyone,
> I was wondering if someone could point me (or share direct, personal
> experience) to some information referencing local Internet access (per
> legal requirements for doing business) in India, if in need to utilize
> Citrix or VMWare solutions (virtual desktop) hosted in US-based Data
> Centers, at present with corresponding US Internet access. A redirection of
> such traffic from India -to-> US virtual desktop -to-> India local Internet
> access is definitely a technical possibility, but I assume that due to the
> latency would be practically useless.
> NOTE: due to internal security requirements, the "embedded" browser from
> some versions of thin client is not an option.
> Thank you,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sanog