On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:52 PM Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>Google's DNS servers are slow and extra
> latency makes it worse.
odd, I don't think that's the intent of those dns servers though...
did you have a pointer/graph/note about how/where/when you see slowness?
there are folk who care about this
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?
Lot's of DNS traffic, now. All of the dns or https and all those
clients poi
It may be worthwhile for you to consider adding 15169 to your "Don't accept
$tier1 prefixes from other peers" policy in your inbound policy chain.
I've found that there's a set of $LARGE_ENOUGH networks that, even though
they're not literal $tier1 providers, benefit from that same level of
filteri
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 “no /24s”
filter is dangerous, plus it might solve all traffic issues. It is going to
take effort to be sure you don’t get bitten by the Law Of Unintended
Consequences.
As soon as
On Mar 2, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 3/2/20 3:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> 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 mat
On 3/2/20 3:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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?
A customer is complaining that dat
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 d
On 3/2/20 3:02 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I would say it would be best to see if you can get a direct peer with Google
via the IX. I have done this with some of the ISPs I work with. It was no
additional cost since the physical connections are already in place and
actually was highly recommend
On Mar 2, 2020, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen 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
- On Mar 2, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
> 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 aggregate
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 pay
Yes… That’s correct.
Owen
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 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
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).
On Mon., Mar. 2, 2020, 13:19 Seth Mat
On 3/2/20 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In part, it might be because people you’re not paying may be less tolerant of
anti-social behavior than people you are paying.
I'm not sure how I was being offensive but OK.
In part, it might be because people you’re not paying may be less tolerant of
anti-social behavior than people you are paying.
It does seem rather odd that Google would prefer to receive their traffic over
transit, but I’m not going to try and second guess that decision.
Owen
> On Mar 2, 2020
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
