Hi Job, et al, I agree with Sascha's comment: "Let's please keep it required. Many people rely on PDB information to automate peering configurations. (...) 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. (...) "
Especially the laziness part of the argument! You will (to a small degree) risk a fall in data quality for an unknown number of the networks listed in PeeringDB for this reason. Venlig hilsen / Best Regards Christoffer E: netravnen (at) gmail (dot) com https://plus.google.com/116152221839018754167 On 25 December 2016 at 15:15, Sascha Pollok <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pdb-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
