Google is not turning up any new peering on IXs?
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?
Some answers in this talk from Google at a recent NANOG: Inside Google Peering: Trends, Recent Policy Changes, And Future Direction <https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Yg-qV6Fktjw&trk> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 7:03 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...
Dave Schwartz <https://www.linkedin.com/in/schwartzdavidr/> has the answers on why in this session from NANOG (*See * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg-qV6Fktjw; *See also generally * https://storage.googleapis.com/site-media-prod/meetings/NANOG94/5452/2025060... ) Best, AB AS54098 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...
Some IXPs offer access to Google's VPP Program as a value-add to compensate for this, i.e. you'd establish a bilat or VLL with the IXP's VPP ASN to receive AS15169 routes. Especially for smaller operators with sub-10G aggregated traffic this is the only viable solution. Further, if you're doing 10G+ to any provider, you'd find that it's more viable to establish redundant PNIs in any case. - CH ________________________________ From: Will OBrien via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2025 7:46 AM To: nanog@lists.nanog.org <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Will OBrien <Will.OBrien@digicert.com> Subject: Google is not turning up any new peering on IXs? 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...
On 2025-09-03 21:21, Christopher Hawker via NANOG wrote:
Further, if you're doing 10G+ to any provider, you'd find that it's more viable to establish redundant PNIs in any case.
Note that Google PNIs require >=10G of traffic from Google. They do not care about inbound traffic. Recently tried to get PNIs for 12G *to* Google, they replied "you're not doing enough traffic for PNIs." A closer study of the aforementioned Youtube video revealed they are only looking at outbound. Their peering teams did not raise or explain that distinction to us. -Brian
- 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...
It's worth asking Google (or any peer) if they're willing to share XC costs. Usually this is in the form of "I buy one, you buy the other" On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 2:07 AM 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...
" It's worth asking Google (or any peer) if they're willing to share XC costs" At most DCs I am at it does not matter who puts in the order or LOA as I have to pay for all installed capacity between the meet me room and my rack. So I am also paying for stands that are not currently in use. On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:46 AM Chris via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It's worth asking Google (or any peer) if they're willing to share XC costs. Usually this is in the form of "I buy one, you buy the other"
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 2:07 AM 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...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DVZKZSDU...
-- Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) My website <http://zachunderwood.me/> advance-networking.com
On 9/4/25 11:41, Zach Underwood via NANOG wrote:
At most DCs I am at it does not matter who puts in the order or LOA as I have to pay for all installed capacity between the meet me room and my rack. So I am also paying for stands that are not currently in use.
Many DCs have a separate charge for the cable between your facility and the MMR and then for each actual XC within the MMR. It's then pretty common to pay for/install a higher count cable than you anticipate immediately needing and then pay separately to have them actually connected to something both in non-recurring and recurring charges. Many also charge separately for both halves of the X-conn - basically charging per CFA. When this happens, it's a prime candidate for "each party pays their half". -- Brandon Martin
It's worth asking Google (or any peer) if they're willing to share XC costs. Usually this is in the form of "I buy one, you buy the other"
Generally yes, lots of people do this, but it's not going to change Google's calculus on this. Again it's mostly about GCP, specifically GCP network tiers. If you have stuff in GCP, you have 2 network tier options. Standard and Premium. Standard : Ingress/Egress is to/from the *closest Google POP* to where your stuff is. (Hot potato out, cold potato in) Premium : Ingress : Into Google POP closest to the other endpoint ( Hot potato in) Egress : rides the Google network to the closest POP to where the other side is. ( Cold potato out ) Ingress traffic is still free, the network tier you select specifies what you pay for outbound. Premium tier is about 1.5x more expensive than Standard, so you can probably assume way more people are using that. As you would expect, this means Google needs lots of external connectivity at the POPs closest to the GCP regions, so they're buying TONS of transit there. This is requiring a lot of hardware investment from both Google and the transit providers. What happens when transit providers have to buy new hardware for one customer? They put minimum traffic commits in the contract to better amortize the payback on the hardware costs. Google has a ton of transit capacity that there is a cost floor on due to min commits. They are now financially incentivised to move as much traffic over to those links as they can because they're paying for them anyways. They are now financially *disincentivised* to peer in many circumstances. - Peering costs require a router, port, MRC for cross connect , and MRC for IX if that. Then you get the traffic for free. - If you connect this peering to a router that you already have in a location you already are, it's marginal cost to do it, so why not. - If you have to have hardware / cage space / power somewhere that only exists for peering, it might be different. Moving that traffic to transit may cost you say $1M MRC , but if you can delete $100k a month in amortized hardware costs / cage / power / MRCs , that pays for itself in 10 months and then you're green. Less so if that traffic goes towards a min commit that you're not reaching traffic wise, but paying for. This makes MBA's wake up at 2am with tingles. It's just shifting network needs and traffic patterns since GCP has taken off. Google search/ads revenue growth has been under threat for years, so they have been trying to build up different revenue streams. GCP is up to around 20% of search/ads revenue, and growing something like 35-40% year over year. As a result they seem to be reorganizing their network to make sure GCP is most performant since that is what they believe is their future longer term cash cow. On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:47 AM Chris via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It's worth asking Google (or any peer) if they're willing to share XC costs. Usually this is in the form of "I buy one, you buy the other"
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 2:07 AM 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...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/DVZKZSDU...
participants (9)
-
Adam Blackington -
Brandon Martin -
Brian Knight -
Chris -
Christopher Hawker -
Innocent Obi -
Tom Beecher -
Will OBrien -
Zach Underwood