[147671] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Sat Dec 17 15:51:05 2011
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=r9t1x_NxwWXdScZ_EvTUAAPnDqKLpYbLER-R_M+Z6rvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:49:46 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I've had similar experiences to Mr. Petach.
Depending on order of operations, you can look at this from a
different prospective as well -- why go with a soulless entity for
your transit (or transport, collocation, ...) requirements, when you
can "keep it in the family" and engage a peer who already understands
your service model and is committed to maintaining mutual benefit?
Indeed, the old adage of "once a customer, never a peer" could never be wronger.
-a
