- 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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/77ZSJJ65...