nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google peering in LAX
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:37:34 -0800
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.
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)