<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi Nishal, </div><div><br></div><div>Sorry, I just saw the list of the members here: <a href="http://www.mixp.org/#members">http://www.mixp.org/#members</a>.</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Nishal Goburdhan <<a href="mailto:nishal@controlfreak.co.za">nishal@controlfreak.co.za</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On 29 Feb 2016, at 5:29, Roderick wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hello Nishal, SM and all,<br>> - If ASes 23889 and 30999 are listed to me as “the only peer at the IXP”<br></blockquote><br>i read the mixp website really carefully; it doesn’t have any such claim. in fact the list of peering participants lists many more networks than these.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Given the members list below, MIXP can not be classified in this case. </div><div><br></div><div>PS: That’s what I will do for Seychelles-IX. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">why would you assume this?<br></blockquote><br><div>Because I did not spotted the website and hence the list :( that’s why I put “if”. Sorry</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><br><blockquote type="cite">, I would not consider Mauritian IXP as an IXP (without even performing traceroutes and carrying an AS path analysis).<br>- If “3 peers" among which both ASes 23889 and 30999 are listed, then given the AS path above the Mauritian IXP is not working; since all networks should be peering with one another.<br></blockquote><br>not all networks might agree :-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div>We are not in this case neither. But still if we had 3 peers at the exchange point, they should peer with one another. Each of them should have 2 peers. </div><div>A network that want to peer with only one AS is used to establish a private peering link. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">- If more than 3 peers are listed to me, then this only traceroute is not sufficient to decide; since an ISP can decide to peer with some members and not with others.<br>Please note that traceroutes should be performed in both directions and note that there are 30 ASNs in Mauritius (<a href="https://stat.ripe.net/MU#tabId=database">https://stat.ripe.net/MU#tabId=database</a>).<br></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>MIXP can be classified in this case thanks to its 10 peers. As I say, the traceroute only allows me to deduce that Mauritius Telecom and EMTEL are not peering at MIXP. </div><div>But I can not say that MIXP is not working: this requires that I launch traceroutes among all members. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">there are definitely *not* 30 ASNs in operation in mauritius. you’re probably counting all afrinic’s ASNs - including the ones they use for anycast, that are not, ttbomk, even used in mauritius. and networks that were made allocations but don’t use them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, I agree on this. Some ASes may not be in operation. We are in sync. </div><div> </div><div>Thanks for the infos so far. Thanks to Frank as well.</div><br></div><img apple-inline="yes" id="38F46721-DF26-477A-A2EE-5E10CCB88A72" height="467" width="495" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:4DE1443B-702A-4134-8E04-7EFA9FBC9AA7@sdsc.edu"></body></html>