I think it's simply a case of what is transit to you may well be peering to them.
Agreed the best way to configure is bilateral with the big guys (Google/MSFT/...) at any and all IXs you are both on. Gavin On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Joseph Goldman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Team, > > After Megaport's hiccup yesterday, I discovered my Google traffic coming > in via my transit rather than alternate peering fabric. > > We bi-lat peer with Google over Megaport IX, but not over other peering > fabrics, but common sense told me that without bi-lat, it should still use > the Route Server routes and come in via alternate peering, I was wrong! > > Google support confirmed the following preferences: > > "Google generally serves traffic from edge nodes (GGC) preferentially, > then direct peering, then via indirect paths (your transit such as xxxx and > xxxx), and Route servers to be the least preferred" > > Now, its their network and they can prefer what they want to prefer, what > I am interested in though is maybe an understanding why? > > Why would route server routes be less preferred than transit? > > In any case my easy solution is to set up bi-lat via all peering fabrics, > just caught me off guard and goes against what I would think is common > sense routing. > > Thanks, > Joe > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > -- Global Interconnection Director Megaport <https://www.megaport.com> +61 498 498 458
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
