4 ms·

That's the point. Google trying to be special instead of playing nicely with other kids.

justinjlynn 9y ago
Hmm, looking into radb via the following: whois -h whois.radb.net '!iAS-GOOGLE,1' | head -n2 | tail -n1 | sed 's/ /\n/g' | xargs -n1 -i{} whois -h whois.radb.net '!oMAINT-{}' | tee google-radb cat google-radb | grep '^route:' | grep -v '::' | sort | uniq | awk '{print $2}' | wc -l yields 7762 announced unique IPV4 routes at least 10% of which (100% of checked routes) have a suitable reverse route query listed in radb via: cat google-radb | grep '^route:' | grep -v '::' | awk '{print $2}' | shuf | head -n770 | xargs -n1 -i{} whois -h whois.radb.net '!r{},o' | tee google-radb.routesample.lookup | grep '^C' | wc -l What are they announcing that's missing from information gathered there? Edit: Hrmn... looking at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net http://thyme.rand.apnic.net data and comparing it with what google have registered in radb (among their various AS numbers)... they do indeed have a number of advertisements that are unregistered or are at least more specific than their registration (no exact match) Results of the comparison at https://pastebin.com/raw/P9KMG0ri https://pastebin.com/raw/P9KMG0ri
- packetslave 9y ago
  Nice analysis. Passed along to the folks working on the (internal) postmortem for this outage.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Glad to be of some assistance. Please note that the aggregation (in the diff, to reduce extraneous noise from deaggregated announcements) may have introduced some artifacts -- but on the whole it should be accurate (assuming lookups were comprehensive, and that no google AS transits for third party networks). Would appreciate any feedback as to the methods. Cheers.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Since I've had a moment to clean this up, here's a more accurate grepcidr (amazing tool for this -- aggregation is an awful hack and actually adds more noise than it takes away; sorry to your post mortem team) and some analysis/histo -- this is much clearer: https://pastebin.com/raw/96sXXEe1 https://pastebin.com/raw/96sXXEe1
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      may want to change the grep on the data-raw-table to grep -wF '{}' ... the other might miss google AS in the middle of a multi-hop route.
- fundabulousrIII 9y ago
  My eyes.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Shield them or be turned to stone, mere mortal! :D

Hmm, looking into radb via the following: whois -h whois.radb.net '!iAS-GOOGLE,1' | head -n2 | tail -n1 | sed 's/ /\n/g' | xargs -n1 -i{} whois -h whois.radb.net '!oMAINT-{}' | tee google-radb cat google-radb | grep '^route:' | grep -v '::' | sort | uniq | awk '{print $2}' | wc -l yields 7762 announced unique IPV4 routes at least 10% of which (100% of checked routes) have a suitable reverse route query listed in radb via: cat google-radb | grep '^route:' | grep -v '::' | awk '{print $2}' | shuf | head -n770 | xargs -n1 -i{} whois -h whois.radb.net '!r{},o' | tee google-radb.routesample.lookup | grep '^C' | wc -l What are they announcing that's missing from information gathered there? Edit: Hrmn... looking at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net http://thyme.rand.apnic.net data and comparing it with what google have registered in radb (among their various AS numbers)... they do indeed have a number of advertisements that are unregistered or are at least more specific than their registration (no exact match) Results of the comparison at https://pastebin.com/raw/P9KMG0ri https://pastebin.com/raw/P9KMG0ri

packetslave 9y ago
Nice analysis. Passed along to the folks working on the (internal) postmortem for this outage.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Glad to be of some assistance. Please note that the aggregation (in the diff, to reduce extraneous noise from deaggregated announcements) may have introduced some artifacts -- but on the whole it should be accurate (assuming lookups were comprehensive, and that no google AS transits for third party networks). Would appreciate any feedback as to the methods. Cheers.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Since I've had a moment to clean this up, here's a more accurate grepcidr (amazing tool for this -- aggregation is an awful hack and actually adds more noise than it takes away; sorry to your post mortem team) and some analysis/histo -- this is much clearer: https://pastebin.com/raw/96sXXEe1 https://pastebin.com/raw/96sXXEe1
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    may want to change the grep on the data-raw-table to grep -wF '{}' ... the other might miss google AS in the middle of a multi-hop route.
fundabulousrIII 9y ago
My eyes.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Shield them or be turned to stone, mere mortal! :D