nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP peering question
From: David Hofstee <opentext.dhofstee () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:18:47 +0200
I would state that peering gives more control over the traffic you handle (since it is not going over someone else's network). Every hop is a possible problem to your operations, I guess. David On 12 July 2017 at 09:13, Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel () de-cix net> wrote:
On 11. Jul 2017, at 21:43, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:1) Are they present an IX where I am present? 2) Can they configure BGP correctly? 3) … Beer?1) do they have a pulse?4 ) are they in PeeringDB and keep their entry up to date? (especially the contact information) cheers, Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.tremmel () de-cix net Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net
-- -- My opinion is mine.
Current thread:
- BGP peering question craig washington (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Niels Bakker (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Nick Hilliard (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Wolfgang Tremmel (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question David Hofstee (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question cyrus ramirez via NANOG (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bob Evans (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Ethan E. Dee (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question craig washington (Jul 14)