[118865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering in Latin America
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Lyon)
Sun Nov 1 00:39:35 2009
From: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com>
To: Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5b6f80200910312130r25fd63a2sa62aa58663cf65dc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:38:44 -0700
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You may want to double check your verbage when talking with providers.
Transit = you pay for the bandwidth.
Peering = free and is a mutual agreement between the two providers.
Sounds like you want transit. I'd stop using the "peering" word as it
may be confusing people, including your providers.
Cheers,
Mike
On Oct 31, 2009, at 21:30, Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/31 Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>:
>> Ken Gilmour wrote:
>>>
>>> We have BGP4 networks in other locations (IPv4 and IPv6) - Costa
>>> Rica
>>> being one of the places that don't have it... We would really like
>>> to
>>> be able to implement it here but are finding it difficult to find
>>> SPs
>>> who support Customers who advertise their own PI space.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't sound like you want peering - specifically AT&T's answer
>> implies they think you want settlement-free peering when you just
>> want
>> to announce your routes via BGP (aka paid transit).
>>
>> ~Seth
>>
>>
>
> Yes - Sorry my initial approach to NANOG was not very specific!
> However my approach to the SPs was very specific (and ADN understood
> exactly what I wanted when I first approached them and are working on
> a quote)... I specifically asked how we would go about getting a
> second point-to-point link and peer with them over that link (and for
> existing providers such as ICE and RACSA) how we could upgrade our
> current contract to allow us to announce our own PI space... I am not
> sure how I could be any more specific than that...
>
> Ken
>
