[118872] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering in Latin America
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (isabel dias)
Sun Nov 1 07:25:19 2009
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 04:24:29 -0800 (PST)
From: isabel dias <isabeldias1@yahoo.com>
To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com>, Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE9ACDE0-48D1-48B0-9601-46A54C6F5372@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
peering in the IX's=A0a.k.a peering -> unless is a payed service =3Dprivate=
-peering! at the exchange=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Mi=
ke Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com>=0ATo: Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour@gmail.com>=0AC=
c: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>=0ASent: Sun, November 1, 2009 4:38:4=
4 AM=0ASubject: Re: Peering in Latin America=0A=0AYou may want to double ch=
eck your verbage when talking with providers.=0A=0ATransit =3D you pay for =
the bandwidth.=0A=0APeering =3D free and is a mutual agreement between the =
two providers.=0A=0ASounds like you want transit. I'd stop using the "peeri=
ng" word as it may be confusing people, including your providers.=0A=0AChee=
rs,=0AMike=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Oct 31, 2009, at 21:30, Ken Gilmour <ken.gilmour@g=
mail.com> wrote:=0A=0A> 2009/10/31 Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>:=0A>>=
Ken Gilmour wrote:=0A>>> =0A>>> We have BGP4 networks in other locations (=
IPv4 and IPv6) - Costa Rica=0A>>> being one of the places that don't have i=
t... We would really like to=0A>>> be able to implement it here but are fin=
ding it difficult to find SPs=0A>>> who support Customers who advertise the=
ir own PI space.=0A>>> =0A>> =0A>> It doesn't sound like you want peering -=
specifically AT&T's answer=0A>> implies they think you want settlement-fre=
e peering when you just want=0A>> to announce your routes via BGP (aka paid=
transit).=0A>> =0A>> ~Seth=0A>> =0A>> =0A> =0A> Yes - Sorry my initial app=
roach to NANOG was not very specific!=0A> However my approach to the SPs wa=
s very specific (and ADN understood=0A> exactly what I wanted when I first =
approached them and are working on=0A> a quote)... I specifically asked how=
we would go about getting a=0A> second point-to-point link and peer with t=
hem over that link (and for=0A> existing providers such as ICE and RACSA) h=
ow we could upgrade our=0A> current contract to allow us to announce our ow=
n PI space... I am not=0A> sure how I could be any more specific than that.=
..=0A> =0A> Ken=0A> =0A=0A=0A
