[169644] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: valley free routing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Siegel, David)
Fri Mar 7 11:18:51 2014
From: "Siegel, David" <David.Siegel@Level3.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:18:28 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2iorrbd8v.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Having been employed by a provider V in one such example of the below, I vi=
ewed it as a temporary, partial transit relationship. Does such a situatio=
n meet Bill's original definition?
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:42 AM
To: William Herrin
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: valley free routing?
once upon a time, provider A and provider P were having a peering war, and =
provider V provided valley transit for P's prefixes to A. it was not meant=
to be seen publicly, but the traceroutes were posted to nanog, or maybe it=
was com-priv at the time.
this is far from the only time this has happened.
randy
