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 <tim@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

Even if you don’t meet the port speed requirements for a PNI, there is likely something that could work via an IX. On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:57 PM Tim Burke <tim@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