[169645] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: valley free routing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Mar 7 11:41:00 2014
In-Reply-To: <970945E55BFD8C4EA4CAD74B647A9DC05C1427A8@USIDCWVEMBX05.corp.global.level3.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:40:14 -0500
To: "Siegel, David" <David.Siegel@level3.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Siegel, David <David.Siegel@level3.com> wrote:
> Having been employed by a provider V in one such example of the below,
> I viewed it as a temporary, partial transit relationship. Does such a
> situation meet Bill's original definition?
Hi David,
I think you have the right of it. That the recipient elects only to
use the link for a limited set of destinations is an ordinary part of
transit service. In Randy's example, a peering link was converted to a
transit link on a short term basis.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
