nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP peering question
From: Bryan Holloway <bryan () shout net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:28:11 -0500
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from an inbound/outbound point of view.
That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as opposed to eyeballs <-> eyeballs or content <-> content.
On 7/11/17 11:52 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
1) Are they present an IX where I am present? 2) Can they configure BGP correctly? 3) … Beer? Private interconnect requires actual thinking. Putting a procedure in around public peering is just overhead we don’t need.
Current thread:
- BGP peering question craig washington (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Niels Bakker (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Nick Hilliard (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Wolfgang Tremmel (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question David Hofstee (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question cyrus ramirez via NANOG (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bob Evans (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Ethan E. Dee (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question William Herrin (Jul 11)