[cmNOG] Fwd: PCH Peering Survey 2021

Musa Stephen Honlue honlue at gmail.com
Dim 31 Oct 03:25:20 UTC 2021

Please do this

> From: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
> Date: 29 October 2021 at 21:54:45 GMT+4
> To: Denis Fondras <xxnog at ledeuns.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: PCH Peering Survey 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.
> Thanks,
>                                -Bill
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/attachments/20211031/c3c01101/attachment.htm>
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe autre que texte a été nettoyée...
Nom: signature.asc
Type: application/octet-stream
Taille: 833 octets
Desc: non disponible
URL: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/attachments/20211031/c3c01101/attachment.obj>

Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion cmNOG