Some companies just don't join route servers as a policy. It can be annoying if you want to talk to them, but I understand there can be various reasons why. It gets very annoying when the peering department isn't responsive to manual peering requests when they're not on the route server because then they might as well not be there at all, as far as you're concerned.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
From: "valdis kletnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: "i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt" <martijnschmidt@i3d.net>
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:32:17 PM
Subject: Re: Calling LinkedIn, Amazon and Akamai @ DE-CIX NY
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:55:40 +0000, "i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt" said:
> Here: all networks that didn't already change their peering IP are not
> yet connected to the updated route-server. Some networks are not
> connected to any route-server. Therefore, those networks did not yet
> change their peering IP.
>
> I think you can see what's wrong with that statement.. it does not
> follow. That has nothing to do with peering department resources, but
> everything to do with the chosen peering strategy.
Under what conditions would somebody be present at the exchange and
not talking to the route server *at all* before the IP change?