nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google peering in LAX
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:37:16 -0800
On 3/2/20 4:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
That said, I fear this is going to be a problem long term. A blind “no /24s” filter is dangerous, plus it might solve all traffic issues. It is going to take effort to be sure you don’t get bitten by the Law Of Unintended Consequences.
As soon as Google un-freezes new peering requests so I can get a direct peering that includes appropriate /24's I've been told offlist I should get (instead of the route server subset) I'll happily remove the transit filters. But I can only work with what I'm given.
Current thread:
- Re: Google peering in LAX, (continued)
- 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 Matthew Petach (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Curtis Maurand (Mar 04)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Christopher Morrow (Mar 04)