Re: Google peering in LAX

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Mar 2, 2020, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us> wrote:
> 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.

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?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick