.
- Daniel Golding
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:29 AM
To: Majdi S. Abbas
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
traffic. If you're going to have
traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to
cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate
bilateral agreements?
Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group
Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. ATT Canada has a tough
On 17 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. When we
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? Even though AADS is overpriced, I
considered it just because of the long list of companies that are signed
up on the MLPA.
-Ralph
I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. [...]
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...]
we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories,
we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful
for engineering purposes and that
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...]
we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories,
we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful
for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy.
One BGP session instead of dozens
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more
useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and
configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering.
For smaller ISPs like mine,
