[147674] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sun Dec 18 10:58:40 2011
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
To: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:56:54 +0800
In-Reply-To: <4EECE0F9.8070606@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: mtinka@globaltransit.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart1428560.KVA5LHAEIy
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 02:35:37 AM Joel jaeggli wrote:
> In the circumstances where I've seen this are rare... We
> have had transit providers that we used who also peered
> with us on exchange fabrics for v6 that's about it.
=46unny, we have something similar :-).
But yes, we've seen this in situations where public exchange=20
points are supported by governments, and license holders are=20
"urged" to peer with all members.
Mark.
--nextPart1428560.KVA5LHAEIy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=vvrB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1428560.KVA5LHAEIy--
