Hello, Kindly provided by the Telegeography team : http://www.internetexchangemap.com/ Hope this helps. Y. 2014-07-09 20:34 GMT+02:00 William F. Maton Sotomayor <wmaton@ottix.net>:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Dennis Burgess wrote:

Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to

...

Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J

Telegeography may have this

or:

https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/

...

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> "

Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs <skype:linktechs?call>

-- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace

wfms

-- Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Zaid A. Kahn <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:

PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.

That’s user-submitted data. The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is independently verified by our staff. So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by someone going and laying eyes on it. On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, William F. Maton Sotomayor <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:

https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/

Or, more specifically, https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/index.php?new=1&show_active_only=1&sort=Region&order=desc …gets you exactly what you’re looking for. -Bill

On Jul 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:

Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. Just the opposite.

Exactly, not a criticism; PeeringDB’s focus is on peers, not on IXPs. The IXP Directory’s focus is on IXPs, not peers. Different needs, different data collected, etc.

Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says "177" under “participants"

Interesting. We pull automatically from the standard URL, https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to not double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are peering on multiple subnets, etc. Because we’re doing that 400 times per day, it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.). The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names. Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for instance, are the same organization and consolidating those. I’ll have our IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and whether any of those rules need to be updated. -Bill

On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:

On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:

...

it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).

Is that a good idea?

For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same data as peering with both?

It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV).

There are a lot of these things that seem self-evident to a human in specific cases, but when you write a rule to implement the apparently-self-evident-specific-case, it winds up creating something unanticipated elsewhere. The more you try to have common code that gets applied uniformly across multiple tools, the more you wind up with unexpected results. So, there are times when people want to know that AS42 and AS3856 are both PCH, and there are times when they want to know that they’re different ASes with different routing policies. I’ll report back when I know whether or how we’re over-uniquing that number. In all likelihood, we’re applying a ruleset that’s used in multiple tools, and someone thought it made sense to aggregate more in a different tool. But that’s just speculation, and I’ll know more when our staff who maintain that have finished looking through that section of code and get back to me. -Bill

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014, Paul Stewart wrote:

I?ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google Maps) - just never got around to putting it online. Honestly I wasn?t sure if there was an interest in it :)

chop-chop! :)

Paul

On 2014-07-09, 2:18 PM, "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:

...

Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition <http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm> "

Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> Website: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> - Skype: linktechs <skype:linktechs?call>

-- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com <http://www.towercoverage.com/> - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace

wfms