- Google never segmented Google proper traffic from GCP traffic in their public peering connectivity. - GCP traffic creates different traffic patterns that cause congestion problems to IXes where they haven't expanded capacity enough. - GCP networking tiers are such that they need to have a shitton of capacity to transit providers. - It's cheaper for them to do large, centralized capacity to fewer external networks than it is to try and constantly manage capacity at all these individual IXes. - GCP is Google's fastest growing revenue stream, so everything GCP is more prioritized.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 10:03 PM Will OBrien via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > We recently turned up a new IXP and I’m going through the motions of > arranging the usual peers, etc. > I’m extremely surprised by this one: > > Public Peering > > Google no longer accepts new peering requests at internet exchanges > (IXPs). However, Google maintains dedicated connectivity to the internet > exchanges (IXPs) listed in our PeeringDB entry< > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/15169>. We also maintain existing BGP > sessions across internet exchanges where we are connected. For networks who > do not meet our PNI requirements Google will serve those networks via > indirect paths. > > I can only presume that someone who doesn’t pay for cross connect fees > came up with this plan. This feels short sighted at the least. Considering > the benefits of peering, I have to express some dismay at this disservice > to the internet in general. > > Anyone from Google care to explain what appears to be a willful withdrawal > of support for the IXP community? > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/77ZSJJ65QQMALALSFHXJD7WAPFA6P2F4/ > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/3BX7ACYORR7K5AEROVZK3YDTOIZYU2T6/
