CM-IX: operator report
Mount Pleasant, United States · PeeringDB 4366 · ixreport.com/ix/4366/report/
Members of CM-IX that PeeringDB has wrong, from its website members list (8 networks, read 2026-10-08 20:54 UTC), against PeeringDB as of 2026-10-08 20:58 UTC. 3 networks to follow up.
Contacts are the networks' public PeeringDB contacts: the peering (policy) contact where there is one, else technical, then NOC. Networks keep these themselves on PeeringDB.
On your lists, missing from PeeringDB (3)
These networks could add CM-IX to their PeeringDB record. Networks with no PeeringDB record would need to create one first.
| Network | On your | Addresses | Contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| AS27274 AS27274 | website | 149.112.197.15 2001:505:151::15 |
No PeeringDB record |
| AS33583 IBC-FGIS | website | 149.112.197.12 2001:505:151::12 |
No public contact |
| AS397186 CM-IX | website | 149.112.197.2 149.112.197.3 149.112.197.4 2001:505:151::2 2001:505:151::3 2001:505:151::4 |
No public contact |
Addresses or port speeds that differ (0)
CM-IX publishes no IX-F export we could read, so addresses and port speeds can't be compared.
In PeeringDB, not on your lists (0)
Either your lists are missing these networks, or they've left and their PeeringDB record is out of date.
None.