On 24/Sep/15 18:45, Wayne Simpson wrote:
> Completely agree with this, we joined LINX to peer with another network, and > they suggested LINX was the cheapest way to go (for them) so it wasn't a > waste of money for us either way, however we were also impressed by the > number of routes claimed by LINX. On the latest 'HotLINX' newsletter it > suggests over 400k routes available, but you won't get anywhere near that. > Most operators don't even respond to peering requests, and those that do > claim we should be buying transit off of them rather than peering with them. > Sometimes it feels a bit like you are dealing with the old boys club of > ISP's!! > Our traffic is symmetrical as its all VOIP so not like peering with us is a > one sided arrangement. > > Not complaining by the way, LINX is good for picking up traffic from a lot of > UK ISP's, we pick up a lot of the xDSL etc traffic - with VOIP the shortest > path is always preferable - so it's more of an adjustment of expectations. I > have mentioned to LINX before about the accuracy of the figures they > publish... I suppose that from LINX's point of view, the routes available on the route server + those from folk either not on the route server or culling what they send to the route server would equal the claimed number. LINX's view would be shielded by the "we let members do their own peering" number. Mark.
