nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google peering in LAX
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:30:04 -0800
On 3/2/20 3:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Your routers, your decision.But how much traffic are you sending TO Google? Most people get the vast majority of traffic FROM Google. They send you videos, you send them ACKs. Does it matter where the ACKs go?
A customer is complaining that data they're sending is going over a higher latency (longer) path. I don't know what they're doing I don't generally ask why, but they claim it's a problem for whatever they're doing and I don't have a reason to doubt them. It's not youtube.
I agree that it's an undesirable long term solution but if filtering select transit-only /24's shifts the path to peering and reduces latency, if the customer is happy then I'm happy and if/when Google starts accepting peering requests again I'll revisit it.
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 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)