Hi folks - former Fastly VP here. I've flagged this thread to my past colleagues who may not be on the list. Generally speaking, most routes from AS54113 were always available on any given IXP route-servers. Some additional anycast routes can be announced selectively via communities. Respecting the selective peering policy - bi-lats are provided for somewhat bigger traffic peers, and then of course PNI's for the really big stuff. Some of this depends on serving capacity at any given POP.
Certainly, "big" is subjective, as is "worth it". Nevertheless, there was (and I'm sure still is) mutual performance and cost incentive to peer everywhere that it makes sense, and where technically feasible to do so. Hope you all get a reply in short order. Cheers, Ryan Disclaimer: things may have changed - my message here is not authoritative on current policy posture. I am not replying on Fastly's behalf. On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:59 PM Tim Burke <t...@mid.net> wrote: > The PeeringDB contact info was very useful for us. Granted, we were > pulling a substantial amount from them over transit, over 20gb at peak, so > they have a huge incentive to peer with us. 🙂 > > On Dec 6, 2023, at 12:31, Justin Wilson (Lists) <li...@mtin.net> wrote: > > > We have sent them some inquiries in markets we are with no reply. Just > figured they weren’t interested. > > > > > Justin Wilson > j...@mtin.net > jus...@fd-ix.com > Https://www.fdi-ix.com > > On Dec 5, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Peter Potvin via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > Looking for someone on the Fastly peering team to reach out regarding > peering on a couple mutual IXPs - sent an email to the peering contact as > listed on PeeringDB and never heard back, and also have a few colleagues > who have experienced the same issue. > > Regards, > Peter Potvin | Executive Director > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Accuris Technologies Ltd.* > > >
