[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google peering in LAX
- Subject: Google peering in LAX
- From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:37:34 -0800
- In-reply-to: <CABTdvP+vnSik0E7eQGpU8=WF1oDsVR+vzO9N87Ce370o8UQiMA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CABTdvP+vnSik0E7eQGpU8=WF1oDsVR+vzO9N87Ce370o8UQiMA@mail.gmail.com>
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.