I just looked into all the big wholesalers, and they all have terrible peering policies, and are rarely at public exchanges even when it would be trivial *looks at Inteliquent and Equinox Chicago* this is kind of embarrassing for the industry.
On Sep 26, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Mike Hammett <voiceops at ics-il.net> wrote:
That announcement by VoIP.ms predates the bandwidth.com <http://bandwidth.com/> resolution.
Also, why wouldn't VoIP.MS (or rather, their host webhosting companies) have PNIs with bandwidth.com <http://bandwidth.com/>? Oh, well, maybe because like many other VoIP providers, their IP network sucks. Few POPs, no IXes, a technical activity (BGP peering) requires a trip to the account team, etc.
https://peeringdb.com/net/1835 <https://peeringdb.com/net/1835>
https://radar.qrator.net/as12130/peerings#startDate=2021-06-26&endDate=2021-... <https://radar.qrator.net/as12130/peerings#startDate=2021-06-26&endDate=2021-...>
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
From: "Pete Mundy via VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> To: "VoiceOps" <voiceops at voiceops.org> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2021 1:47:18 AM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Bandwidth East Coast Issues
Not sure if Slashdot does...
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/21/09/26/0014216/voipms-battles-week-long-su...
On 26/09/2021, at 12:47 PM, Peter Beckman via VoiceOps <voiceops at voiceops.org> wrote:
BW Considers the incident resolved.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops>