nanog mailing list archives
Re: PCH Peering Paper
From: Fredrik Korsbäck <hugge () nordu net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:48:31 +0100
On 11/02/16 00:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, talking about myself.) The paper is: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf I said “99.97%” of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more than a “handshake” or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa. The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%. Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better data.
Well, how about crowdsourcing some data? 3145 eBGP settlement-free peering-sessions (v4 and v6 combined) in US and EU. 350k routes recieved over SFI peering. 1 Written contract in EU for SFI 1 Written contract in US for SFI R&E Sector -- Apparently not a peering coordinator. Fredrik "hugge" Korsbäck AS2603
Current thread:
- PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 10)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Fredrik Korsbäck (Feb 10)
- Message not available
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- Message not available
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)
- RE: PCH Peering Paper Phil Bedard (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Niels Bakker (Feb 12)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 16)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Bill Woodcock (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: PCH Peering Paper Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 17)
- re: PCH Peering Paper Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)