[189082] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NOC AS1836 green.ch AG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?Q?Fredrik_Korsb=c3=a4ck?=)
Tue May 3 16:18:15 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fredrik_Korsb=c3=a4ck?= <hugge@nordu.net>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:18:00 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CANiyn-2wCZjEAm9jc+KWH-rxsZ1VHpJWeqr6CYKjij8WKHYU-w@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 03/05/16 21:23, Marco Paesani wrote:
> Hi Arnold,
> nobody answer at 'peering@green.ch' for this reason I write here on NANOG.
> Ciao,
>
>
> Marco Paesani
>
>
> Skype: mpaesani
> Mobile: +39 348 6019349
> Success depends on the right choice !
> Email: marco@paesani.it
>
Marco.
As I've told you when you hunted me down the last time through backside channels.. :)
When you don't get an answer on peering@ addresses its not because they don't read the emails. Instead of declining a peering-request formally people tend to just use the silent treatment and have that represent a "No". If you don't hear back - you probably don't fulfill the requirements to be eligible to peer with a network and for a big network with selective or restrictive policy, answering
"no" to emails all day long isn't productive for anyone.
This is one of MANY unwritten rules in the peering-world which can be hard to grasp at first. To understand the nomenclature and the "rules", going on a field trip to conferences such as NANOG, RIPE, EPF, GPF and the such is a great way to understand the game, so one can act accordingly to how the playfield looks like.
--
hugge @ AS2603
