nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google peering in LAX
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:44:05 -0800
In part, it might be because people you’re not paying may be less tolerant of anti-social behavior than people you are paying. It does seem rather odd that Google would prefer to receive their traffic over transit, but I’m not going to try and second guess that decision. Owen
On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us> wrote: Anyone know why Google announces only aggregates via peering and disaggregate prefixes over transit? For example, I had a customer complaining about a path that was taking the long way instead of via peering and when I looked I saw: Only 172.217.0.0/16 over Any2 LAX That plus 172.217.14.0/24 over transit Any inquiries to Google just get a generic "we're not setting up any new peering but we're on route servers" response for almost a year now. Or is it because they don't send the /24's to route servers and I'm stuck until they finish their forever improvement project to turn up a direct neighbor?
Current thread:
- Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Hugo Slabbert (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Randy Carpenter (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)