nanog mailing list archives
PCH Peering Paper
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:34:33 -0500
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. -- TTFN, patrick
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 Livingood, Jason (Feb 12)