nanog mailing list archives
RE: valley free routing?
From: "Siegel, David" <David.Siegel () Level3 com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:18:28 +0000
Having been employed by a provider V in one such example of the below, I viewed it as a temporary, partial transit relationship. Does such a situation meet Bill's original definition? -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:42 AM To: William Herrin Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: valley free routing? once upon a time, provider A and provider P were having a peering war, and provider V provided valley transit for P's prefixes to A. it was not meant to be seen publicly, but the traceroutes were posted to nanog, or maybe it was com-priv at the time. this is far from the only time this has happened. randy
Current thread:
- valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 05)
- RE: valley free routing? Siegel, David (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Blake Dunlap (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? JÁKÓ András (Mar 06)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Joel Maslak (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 06)
- Re: valley free routing? Randy Bush (Mar 06)
- RE: valley free routing? Siegel, David (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? Randy Bush (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 07)
- RE: valley free routing? Siegel, David (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 06)