Re: Google peering in LAX

[Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>]

On 3/2/20 2:20 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> I believe Owen was referring here to Google's actions: that the disagg 
> is the antisocial behaviour and that transit providers (the people they 
> are paying) would be more tolerant of that antisocial behaviour than 
> would be peers (the people they are not paying).


I suppose that one went over my head.

To clarify I am the one with peering in LAX and I'm only seeing the big 
aggregates via the Any2 Easy servers. At the moment I can only infer 
that Google announces aggregates to the route servers and maybe one only 
gets the /24's after you turn up a direct neighbor or PNI, but there's 
no way to do that since Google isn't accepting new peering requests and 
steers such requests back to what's available on route servers.

I suppose what I could do is filter /24's from 15169$ in the absence of 
being able to see if a direct/PNI peering would include them where route 
servers do not.