On 2016-12-28 15:13, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 28.12.2016 01:03, Joe Provo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:55:22AM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
Same is for privacy. If a network doesn't want to disclose its IP there
may be reasons for it. Otherwise it wouldn't do so.
The "reason" is weird or useless at best IME.
A little late to the game here, but I have to +1 this. Privacy shouldn't
be a reason to not publish the IP a member has at an IX.
I can't say why some networks do that. But I'm sure some do it by
purpose. Make it mandatory would at least annoy them.
Otoh we also have the plan that IP information should come from the IXP
and not from networks.
I like this suggestion but it certainly means you can't overload the
field, right!? Either a network is a member of an IXP or they are not.
If they are, the IXP will provide IP information about the member and
peeringdb can be populated with this. What if the IXP assigned v6 but
the member is not using it? I still think the assigned v6 address should
be in peeringdb and either we rely on YAF to signify presence /
configured or we suggest to other members that they shouldn't blindly
configure peering sessions. A simple ping / ARP / ND check before
configuring a peer seems simple enough.
Or do you let the member fill in the data and then you get the data from
the IXP and show a little green "verified by IXP" check mark next to it
if they match up?
Imho all we need is a common understanding what something means. Does it
really hurt if we allow an empty IP address? Does it break any automation?
yes. folks have to trap for that case, and it is indeterminate:
intentional? user error? IX error? etc
With PDB 1.0 you had to enter a value even if that was not an IP
address. Since PDB 2.0 we do type checking however do not enforce to set
an IP.
Summarizing the discussion so far I have the impression that
* IP address must be set (IPv4 OR IPv6)
* YAF for indicating "will show up soon" would be great as well
I don't know about this. Does it really matter? I know people like to
mark their intended / future presence on an IX but there are lots of
habits that people have for no apparent reason. Some send emails to the
IX mailing list saying "we will soon announce prefix X, please update
your filters" - does anyone actually care? If you have strict prefix
filtering (some say you should!), don't you just generate that from RIR
data!? That is, that email serves no function whatsoever.
What is the raison d'être for the flag?
kll
_______________________________________________
Pdb-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
