Re: Google peering in LAX

[Justin Seabrook-Rocha <xenith () xenith org>]

You hit the nail on the head. Google only seems to announce a subset of their routes to the route servers, but does 
announce all routes (for some definition of “all”) to direct peers. I notice this every time I turn up a new IX and 
traffic heads off onto my backbone instead of the local IX.

I did a spot check and I get that /24 via my direct peering (along with the /16).

Justin Seabrook-Rocha
-- 
Xenith || xenith () xenith org || http://xenith.org/



> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:40, 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?