Meant to reply to this thread earlier today, but a contact from 16509 reached out directly and got everything squared away for us.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 8:56 PM Tim Burke <t...@mid.net> wrote: > We reached out some time ago using the contact on PeeringDB and had no > issue, but the amount of transit consumed to get to 16509 is substantial > enough to make responding worth their while. > > Their minimum peering is 100G, with 400G preferred, so it’s very possible > that if you’re not consuming anywhere close to 100G, the lack of response > could correlate to a lack of interest on their side. > > > On Feb 18, 2024, at 13:09, Peter Potvin via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > wrote: > > > > > > If a contact who manages North American peering at AS16509 could reach > out off-list, that would be appreciated. Myself and a few colleagues have > attempted to reach out via the contacts listed on PeeringDB on multiple > occasions over the last couple of months and have not been successful in > reaching someone. > > > > Kind regards, > > Peter Potvin >
