[187574] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PCH Peering Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?Q?Fredrik_Korsb=c3=a4ck?=)
Wed Feb 10 21:57:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fredrik_Korsb=c3=a4ck?= <hugge@nordu.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:48:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CB686EBA-B783-42D9-B95C-020FBF5A6352@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 11/02/16 00:34, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, talking about myself.)
>
> The paper is:
> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf
>
> I said “99.97%” of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more than a “handshake” or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa.
>
> The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%.
>
> Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better data.
>
Well, how about crowdsourcing some data?
3145 eBGP settlement-free peering-sessions (v4 and v6 combined) in US and EU. 350k routes recieved over SFI peering.
1 Written contract in EU for SFI
1 Written contract in US for SFI
R&E Sector
--
Apparently not a peering coordinator.
Fredrik "hugge" Korsbäck
AS2603
