PCH Peering Survey 2021

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Fri Oct 29 17:51:54 UTC 2021

> On Oct 29, 2021, at 6:55 PM, Denis Fondras <xxnog at 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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211029/3704ffd3/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list