nanog mailing list archives
Re: PCH Peering Survey 2021
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:51:54 +0200
On Oct 29, 2021, at 6:55 PM, Denis Fondras <xxnog () ledeuns net> wrote: Le Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:47:37PM +0200, Bill Woodcock a écrit :If you’re peering with an MLPA route-server, you’re welcome to include just the route-server’s ASN, if that’s easiest, rather than trying to include each of the peer ASNs on the other side of the route-server. Either way is fine.I have an agreement with the RS owner (IXP) but not with each participant. Should the contractual relationship be true or false ?
Sorry, we should have been more clear about that… This is just whether a bilateral contract exists between the two peering ASes. We’re looking at multilateral agreements separately, because two ASes may peer directly in some locations and via multilateral route-servers elsewhere. So with that question we just want to know whether there’s a bilateral contract. Thanks, -Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Current thread:
- PCH Peering Survey 2021 Bill Woodcock (Oct 29)
- Re: PCH Peering Survey 2021 Denis Fondras (Oct 29)
- Re: PCH Peering Survey 2021 Bill Woodcock (Oct 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: PCH Peering Survey 2021 Adam Thompson (Oct 31)
- Re: PCH Peering Survey 2021 Denis Fondras (Oct 29)