[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 17:37:16 -0800
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 3/2/20 4:32 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> That said, I fear this is going to be a problem long term. A blind â??no /24sâ?? filter is dangerous, plus it might solve all traffic issues. It is going to take effort to be sure you donâ??t get bitten by the Law Of Unintended Consequences.


As soon as Google un-freezes new peering requests so I can get a direct 
peering that includes appropriate /24's I've been told offlist I should 
get (instead of the route server subset) I'll happily remove the transit 
filters. But I can only work with what I'm given.

Follow-Ups:
- Google peering in LAX
  - From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)

References:
- Google peering in LAX
  - From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
- Google peering in LAX
  - From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
- Google peering in LAX
  - From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
- Google peering in LAX
  - From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)

Prev by Date: Google peering in LAX
Next by Date: Google peering in LAX
Previous by thread: Google peering in LAX
Next by thread: Google peering in LAX
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread