Re: BGP peering question

[Opeyemi via NANOG]

Okay I will just throw this, in addition to what the others have said. From an 
ISP point of view, assuming the neighbor is able to provision their end of the 
cross-connect, you need to check the common POP cost requirements, and also 
consider if the neighbor is willing to either pay for the peering or provide a 
mutual benefit.

Payment is straight forward. Mutual benefit will depend on what you desire from 
the neighbor-ship; secure IPv6, Transit services, latency and capacity 
thresholds, route and path attribute requirements, responsiveness to 
collaboration over issues (abuse, outages, and instability), internetwork 
politics, and other BGP controls.

Opeyemi Olomola


> On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:12 PM, craig washington  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want 
> to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP 
> point of view.

Re: BGP peering question

[craig washington]

Awesome!

Thanks for all of the feedback.

I am going through the links you sent me and I think they will be of very good 
help.

I guess it was a general question but that was kinda the point, get feed back 
from all the pro's 


thank you very much again.



From: Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 5:41 PM
To: craig washington
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP peering question




On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington 
<craigwashingto...@hotmail.com<mailto:craigwashingto...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,


Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want to 
peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP point 
of view.


You didn't say what kind of 'peering'. That could mean over an IXP or to be 
directly connected. You do not need to be a member of an IX to peer.

There are at least three types of criteria to evaluate. Technical, business and 
legal.  Take a look here for a few ideas on technical and business criteria:

http://bit.ly/2ue2t0P

"Me too" with the rest of the thread. If peering serves your mutual interests 
(or just yours even), its an easy decision.

The Dr Peering http://drpeering.net/ website is also a resource for folks new 
to peering.

http://drpeering.net/


Best Regards,

-M<

Re: BGP peering question

[H I Baysal]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is mentioned already but here goes,

You need to understand the difference between peering and a direct
interconnect.
with an interconnect you have to think about is the traffic enough to
"dedicate"  a port for that connection on your edge. ( cost of port vs cost
if you would send the traffic over an IX or transit)

peering it does not matter that much, as in someone mentioned to peer as
much as you can, this will give you more control over announcements per
peer and the announcement to the IX.
for example you could not advertise the prefixes that attract alot of
traffic through the IX RR but to individual members. basically it gives you
more control over your announcement to different isps/network over an IX.
however you do have to think about the load on your router on the edge, the
more sessions the more "power" it needs and more processing when things go
wrong or flap.

I hope i didn't give redundant information and it helps.

good luck!!!

Regards,

Halil

2017-07-13 21:27 GMT+02:00 Owen DeLong :

> If you develop a well tuned process for creating BGP sessions and even a
> moderate
> system for monitoring not the individual sessions, but meaningful traffic
> events on
> your network, then, maintaining a large number of peers and a promiscuous
> peering
> policy is not such a daunting process.
>
> As a general rule, promiscuous peering improves efficiency and keeps your
> options for
> traffic delivery open. Restrictive peering generally has the opposite
> effect.
>
> Route servers are a lazy form of promiscuous peering, with an attendant
> fate sharing
> which can produce suboptimal results. YMMV.
>
> I’ve worked for several networks of various sizes and observed the
> industry in general
> for many years. As a general rule, a restrictive peering policy is a great
> way to lose
> momentum in the market and convert a major ISP into a bit-player (e.g.
> SPRINT), whereas
> promiscuous peering can be a key component in moving a trivial ISP into a
> major player
> in the industry (e.g. HE).
>
> Again, YMMV.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 11:04 , Baldur Norddahl 
> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking as a small ISP with 10 to 20 Gbps peak traffic. We are heavy
> > inbound as a pure eyeball network.
> >
> > We use the route servers. We only maintain direct BGP sessions with a few
> > large peers. Think Google, Netflix, Akamai etc.
> >
> > The reason for this is simply administrative overhead. Every BGP session
> > has to be configured and monitored. We know that it will not move a large
> > percentage of our traffic. We simply do not have the ressources currently
> > when the gain is so little.
> >
> > Anyone who wants to pass traffic efficiently to us can either use the
> route
> > server or they can peer with Hurricane Electric. The later option will
> get
> > the traffic to us almost as efficiently as peering directly with us. In
> > this sense we outsourced the peering to them.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Baldur
> >
> > Den 11. jul. 2017 18.42 skrev "craig washington" <
> > craigwashingto...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>
> >> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> >> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone
> from
> >> an ISP point of view.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Halil Ibrahim Baysal

T: +31 (0)6 20 14 20 79
E: hibay...@gmail.com

Re: BGP peering question

[Owen DeLong]

If you develop a well tuned process for creating BGP sessions and even a 
moderate
system for monitoring not the individual sessions, but meaningful traffic 
events on
your network, then, maintaining a large number of peers and a promiscuous 
peering
policy is not such a daunting process.

As a general rule, promiscuous peering improves efficiency and keeps your 
options for
traffic delivery open. Restrictive peering generally has the opposite effect.

Route servers are a lazy form of promiscuous peering, with an attendant fate 
sharing
which can produce suboptimal results. YMMV.

I’ve worked for several networks of various sizes and observed the industry in 
general
for many years. As a general rule, a restrictive peering policy is a great way 
to lose
momentum in the market and convert a major ISP into a bit-player (e.g. SPRINT), 
whereas
promiscuous peering can be a key component in moving a trivial ISP into a major 
player
in the industry (e.g. HE).

Again, YMMV.

Owen

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 11:04 , Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> 
> Speaking as a small ISP with 10 to 20 Gbps peak traffic. We are heavy
> inbound as a pure eyeball network.
> 
> We use the route servers. We only maintain direct BGP sessions with a few
> large peers. Think Google, Netflix, Akamai etc.
> 
> The reason for this is simply administrative overhead. Every BGP session
> has to be configured and monitored. We know that it will not move a large
> percentage of our traffic. We simply do not have the ressources currently
> when the gain is so little.
> 
> Anyone who wants to pass traffic efficiently to us can either use the route
> server or they can peer with Hurricane Electric. The later option will get
> the traffic to us almost as efficiently as peering directly with us. In
> this sense we outsourced the peering to them.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Baldur
> 
> Den 11. jul. 2017 18.42 skrev "craig washington" <
> craigwashingto...@hotmail.com>:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> 
>> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
>> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
>> an ISP point of view.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: BGP peering question

[Baldur Norddahl]

Speaking as a small ISP with 10 to 20 Gbps peak traffic. We are heavy
inbound as a pure eyeball network.

We use the route servers. We only maintain direct BGP sessions with a few
large peers. Think Google, Netflix, Akamai etc.

The reason for this is simply administrative overhead. Every BGP session
has to be configured and monitored. We know that it will not move a large
percentage of our traffic. We simply do not have the ressources currently
when the gain is so little.

Anyone who wants to pass traffic efficiently to us can either use the route
server or they can peer with Hurricane Electric. The later option will get
the traffic to us almost as efficiently as peering directly with us. In
this sense we outsourced the peering to them.

Regards

Baldur

Den 11. jul. 2017 18.42 skrev "craig washington" <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
>
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>

Re: BGP peering question

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.
>


You didn't say what kind of 'peering'. That could mean over an IXP or to be
directly connected. You do not need to be a member of an IX to peer.

There are at least three types of criteria to evaluate. Technical, business
and legal.  Take a look here for a few ideas on technical and business
criteria:

http://bit.ly/2ue2t0P

"Me too" with the rest of the thread. If peering serves your mutual
interests (or just yours even), its an easy decision.

The Dr Peering http://drpeering.net/ website is also a resource for folks
new to peering.

http://drpeering.net/


Best Regards,

-M<

Re: BGP peering question

[cyrus ramirez via NANOG]

Is your AS registered with ARIN?2 byte or 4 byte ASN number?How many devices 
are you peering with?Dual homed, multi homed?Bandwidth?Type of traffic?
There are alot more...

Regards,Cyrus Ramirez

 



On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 3:11:38 PM EDT, David Hofstee 
 wrote:

I would state that peering gives more control over the traffic you handle
(since it is not going over someone else's network). Every hop is a
possible problem to your operations, I guess.


David

On 12 July 2017 at 09:13, Wolfgang Tremmel 
wrote:

>
> > On 11. Jul 2017, at 21:43, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> >
> > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
> >>
> >> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
> >>
> >> 3) … Beer?
> >
> >
> > 1) do they have a pulse?
>
> 4 ) are they in PeeringDB and keep their entry up to date? (especially the
> contact information)
>
> cheers,
> Wolfgang
>
>
> --
> Wolfgang Tremmel
>
> Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816
> | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net
> Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main |
> Germany | www.de-cix.net
>
>
>


-- 
--
My opinion is mine.

Re: BGP peering question

[David Hofstee]

I would state that peering gives more control over the traffic you handle
(since it is not going over someone else's network). Every hop is a
possible problem to your operations, I guess.


David

On 12 July 2017 at 09:13, Wolfgang Tremmel 
wrote:

>
> > On 11. Jul 2017, at 21:43, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> >
> > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
> >>
> >> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
> >>
> >> 3) … Beer?
> >
> >
> > 1) do they have a pulse?
>
> 4 ) are they in PeeringDB and keep their entry up to date? (especially the
> contact information)
>
> cheers,
> Wolfgang
>
>
> --
> Wolfgang Tremmel
>
> Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816
> | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net
> Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main |
> Germany | www.de-cix.net
>
>
>


-- 
--
My opinion is mine.

Re: BGP peering question

[Tore Anderson]

* craig washington

> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that
> you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with
> someone from an ISP point of view.
Routing hygiene. I expect the would-be peer to keep the number of
advertised routes that are either 1) not registered in RIPE/RADB, 2)
disaggregated, or 3) redundant (i.e., more-specifics of larger
advertisements) to an absolute minimum.

Tore

Re: BGP peering question

[Wolfgang Tremmel]

> On 11. Jul 2017, at 21:43, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
>> 
>> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
>> 
>> 3) … Beer?
> 
> 
> 1) do they have a pulse?

4 ) are they in PeeringDB and keep their entry up to date? (especially the 
contact information)

cheers,
Wolfgang


-- 
Wolfgang Tremmel 

Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | 
wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net
Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany 
| www.de-cix.net

Re: BGP peering question

[Nick Hilliard]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
> 
> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
> 
> 3) … Beer?

Naah, way overthought.  I prefer the traditional:

1) do they have a pulse?

Nick

Re: BGP peering question

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore 
wrote:

> > Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers
> or if you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that
> both providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between
> the two providers.
>
> The definition of “peering” to most ISPs would definitely not include
> becoming a “hop” between two peers. Most networks would de-peer you if you
> sent their prefixes to another peer.
>

Hi Patrick,

I'm given to understand this practice is common in service providers
connecting academia. Three or more service providers serving schools will
agree to pass packets even if neither school terminates at the current ISP.

This comes up in the discussion of "valley free" inter-domain routing
because it's one of the cases that forms a valley where the participating
organization is not paid for or directly donating the transiting packets.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: BGP peering question

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

> Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers or if 
> you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that both 
> providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between the two 
> providers.

The definition of “peering” to most ISPs would definitely not include becoming 
a “hop” between two peers. Most networks would de-peer you if you sent their 
prefixes to another peer.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Jul 11, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Ethan E. Dee  wrote:
> 
> Considering the wording you use, I would include this,
> 
> 'Peering' is not always necessary. If you can get an upstream provider to 
> give you a pack of IP's and it is sufficient to just use them as a gateway 
> instead of setting up peering that would be preferred.
> 
> If you decide you want to have multiple upstream providers or hit some kind 
> of speed cap is when I would probably peer with someone else. So that you can 
> keep your IP space but share it across a redundant connection from a 
> different provider.
> 
> Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers or if 
> you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that both 
> providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between the two 
> providers.
> 
> BGP is an enormous protocol and extremely scalable so there is alot to 
> consider before you even decide if you want to peer.
> 
> Because it can sometimes be a headache to setup.
> 
> 
> On 07/11/2017 02:17 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
>> There is one more thing to consider based on your app or content latency
>> criteria needs. Do you provide a service that performs better with low
>> latency - such as live desktop, live video/voice. You may wish to peer to
>> have more control and more direct  path to your customer base. If you
>> identify your customer base in a specific region - then explore the best
>> peering exchange points to utilize in that region. This can help you
>> reduce your packet hop count/ deliver time, etc. etc..
>> 
>> Thank You
>> Bob Evans
>> CTO
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
>>> craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
 Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
 want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone
 from
 an ISP point of view.
>>> 
>>> I assume you mean "reciprocal peering" in the sense of shortcut from your
>>> customers to their customers rather than the more generic sense that any
>>> BGP neighbor is a "peer".
>>> 
>>> 1. What does it cost? If you and they are already on an IX peering switch
>>> or you're both at a relaxed location where running another cable carries
>>> no
>>> monthly fee, there's not much down side.
>>> 
>>> 2. Is the improvement to your service worth the cost? It's not worth
>>> buying
>>> a data circuit or cross-connect to support a 100kbps trickle.
>>> 
>>> 3. Do you have the technical acumen to stay on top of it? Some kinds of
>>> breakage in the peering link could jam traffic between your customers and
>>> theirs. If you're not able to notice and respond, you'd be better off
>>> sending the traffic up to your ISPs and letting them worry about it.
>>> 
>>> If the three of those add up to "yes" instead of "no" then peering may be
>>> smart.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill Herrin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>>> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ethan Dee
> Network Admin
> Globalvision
> 864 704 3600
> e...@globalvision.net
> 
> For Support:
> gv-supp...@globalvision.net
> 864 467 1333
> 
> For Sales:
> sa...@globalvision.net
> 864 467 1333

Re: BGP peering question

[Nick Hilliard]

craig washington wrote:
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that
> you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with
> someone from an ISP point of view.

If you're new to the game, peer with everyone you can and use route
servers aggressively.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

At the point at which you have a medium sized network, in the sense of
maintaining multiple peering points, PNIs, transit customers, and tens
to hundreds of gigs of traffic (i.e. the stage at which you actually
have to think a bit about your traffic routing policies), you might want
to consider whether it's worth your while peering with smaller players
and also whether whether route servers are still a good fit for your
business requirements.

If you are very large, the rules are completely different and will
depend entirely on your business model.  Some organisations thrive on
open interconnection models; others prefer to be highly selective.

Nick

Re: BGP peering question

[Ethan E. Dee]

Considering the wording you use, I would include this,

'Peering' is not always necessary. If you can get an upstream provider 
to give you a pack of IP's and it is sufficient to just use them as a 
gateway instead of setting up peering that would be preferred.


If you decide you want to have multiple upstream providers or hit some 
kind of speed cap is when I would probably peer with someone else. So 
that you can keep your IP space but share it across a redundant 
connection from a different provider.


Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers 
or if you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so 
that both providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes 
between the two providers.


BGP is an enormous protocol and extremely scalable so there is alot to 
consider before you even decide if you want to peer.


Because it can sometimes be a headache to setup.


On 07/11/2017 02:17 PM, Bob Evans wrote:

There is one more thing to consider based on your app or content latency
criteria needs. Do you provide a service that performs better with low
latency - such as live desktop, live video/voice. You may wish to peer to
have more control and more direct  path to your customer base. If you
identify your customer base in a specific region - then explore the best
peering exchange points to utilize in that region. This can help you
reduce your packet hop count/ deliver time, etc. etc..

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO





On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone
from
an ISP point of view.


I assume you mean "reciprocal peering" in the sense of shortcut from your
customers to their customers rather than the more generic sense that any
BGP neighbor is a "peer".

1. What does it cost? If you and they are already on an IX peering switch
or you're both at a relaxed location where running another cable carries
no
monthly fee, there's not much down side.

2. Is the improvement to your service worth the cost? It's not worth
buying
a data circuit or cross-connect to support a 100kbps trickle.

3. Do you have the technical acumen to stay on top of it? Some kinds of
breakage in the peering link could jam traffic between your customers and
theirs. If you're not able to notice and respond, you'd be better off
sending the traffic up to your ISPs and letting them worry about it.

If the three of those add up to "yes" instead of "no" then peering may be
smart.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 





--
Ethan Dee
Network Admin
Globalvision
864 704 3600
e...@globalvision.net

For Support:
gv-supp...@globalvision.net
864 467 1333

For Sales:
sa...@globalvision.net
864 467 1333

Re: BGP peering question

[Bob Evans]

There is one more thing to consider based on your app or content latency
criteria needs. Do you provide a service that performs better with low
latency - such as live desktop, live video/voice. You may wish to peer to
have more control and more direct  path to your customer base. If you
identify your customer base in a specific region - then explore the best
peering exchange points to utilize in that region. This can help you
reduce your packet hop count/ deliver time, etc. etc..

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
> craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
>> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone
>> from
>> an ISP point of view.
>
>
> I assume you mean "reciprocal peering" in the sense of shortcut from your
> customers to their customers rather than the more generic sense that any
> BGP neighbor is a "peer".
>
> 1. What does it cost? If you and they are already on an IX peering switch
> or you're both at a relaxed location where running another cable carries
> no
> monthly fee, there's not much down side.
>
> 2. Is the improvement to your service worth the cost? It's not worth
> buying
> a data circuit or cross-connect to support a 100kbps trickle.
>
> 3. Do you have the technical acumen to stay on top of it? Some kinds of
> breakage in the peering link could jam traffic between your customers and
> theirs. If you're not able to notice and respond, you'd be better off
> sending the traffic up to your ISPs and letting them worry about it.
>
> If the three of those add up to "yes" instead of "no" then peering may be
> smart.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>

Re: BGP peering question

[Niels Bakker]

* br...@shout.net (Bryan Holloway) [Tue 11 Jul 2017, 19:28 CEST]:
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from 
an inbound/outbound point of view.


That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and 
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as opposed to 
eyeballs <-> eyeballs or content <-> content.


Luckily these are not exclusionary so you can peer with all networks 
present at an Internet exchange with no repercussions.



-- Niels.

Re: BGP peering question

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.


I assume you mean "reciprocal peering" in the sense of shortcut from your
customers to their customers rather than the more generic sense that any
BGP neighbor is a "peer".

1. What does it cost? If you and they are already on an IX peering switch
or you're both at a relaxed location where running another cable carries no
monthly fee, there's not much down side.

2. Is the improvement to your service worth the cost? It's not worth buying
a data circuit or cross-connect to support a 100kbps trickle.

3. Do you have the technical acumen to stay on top of it? Some kinds of
breakage in the peering link could jam traffic between your customers and
theirs. If you're not able to notice and respond, you'd be better off
sending the traffic up to your ISPs and letting them worry about it.

If the three of those add up to "yes" instead of "no" then peering may be
smart.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: BGP peering question

[Bryan Holloway]

Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from an 
inbound/outbound point of view.


That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and 
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as opposed to eyeballs 
<-> eyeballs or content <-> content.



On 7/11/17 11:52 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

1) Are they present an IX where I am present?

2) Can they configure BGP correctly?

3) … Beer?

Private interconnect requires actual thinking. Putting a procedure in around 
public peering is just overhead we don’t need.

Re: BGP peering question

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

1) Are they present an IX where I am present?

2) Can they configure BGP correctly?

3) … Beer?

Private interconnect requires actual thinking. Putting a procedure in around 
public peering is just overhead we don’t need.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:12 PM, craig washington  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want 
> to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP 
> point of view.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

BGP peering question

[craig washington]

Hello,


Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want to 
peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP point 
of view.


Thanks.