Hi Job, et al,
Let's please keep it required. Many people rely on PDB information to
automate peering configurations. It does not happen often that we need to
configure peering sessions that require manual input and when it happens,
it is actually annoying. Making IP addresses optional will make more ASes
not document them either of lazyness or weird security reasons. If someone
thinks not disclosing them gives extra security they do have a problem
anyway. It's easy to find out peering LAN IPs if someone wants to do
something ugly.
Please keep them required.
Merry xmas
Sascha
On 25. December 2016 13:33:04 Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps a different way of phrasing the question:
When you indicate you are a participant of an IXP, should entering an IP
address be optional?
Kind regards,
Job
On 25 Dec 2016, 12:39 +0100, Job Snijders <[email protected]>, wrote:
Hi all,
Sometimes people want to disclose their presence at an Internet
Exchange, but don't want to disclose their IP address.
Should PeeringDB allow the IPv4 and IPv6 field to be either of the
following?
"a valid globally unique IP address"
"" (empty)
Or should PDB only accept valid globally unique IP addresses as value
for the IP Field?
It appears we've gone back and forth between allowing empty and not
allowing empty as is visible here: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/1138
(currently empty is not allowed).
An argument against 'empty' is that from an automation perspective the
'empty' value is quite useless.
Based on the outcome of this discussion I'd like to either clean up the
database, or popularise the use of the 'empty ip field' where
applicable.
Kind regards,
Job
----------
_______________________________________________
Pdb-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
_______________________________________________
Pdb-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
