Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-05 Thread James Bensley
On 4 October 2016 at 22:18, Matt Griswold wrote: > From looking through the code, this was never implemented in v2, we can't > think of any technical reasons so it was likely just my screw up while > migrating the database. There are 84 dupe v4 and 51 dupe v6, so we'll fix > the

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread Chris Van Fossen
*> There are 84 dupe v4 and 51 dupe v6, so we'll fix the data and add the constraint.* That constraint can be a problem. Example: Network ABC is given an IP by an IX and updates PeeringDB. Later on, Network ABC leaves the IX, or goes out of business, or stops caring about peering. Their

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread Matt Griswold
>From looking through the code, this was never implemented in v2, we can't think of any technical reasons so it was likely just my screw up while migrating the database. There are 84 dupe v4 and 51 dupe v6, so we'll fix the data and add the constraint. The deploy automation needs updating from

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread Chris Caputo
Slightly related: It would be nice if in addition to the Peer Name column, the IPv4/IPv6 column and the Speed column could have natural sorts available. (Natural sort by IPv4 addr, rather than IPv6 addr, unless IPv6 is put into a separate column.) Chris On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Matt Griswold

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread Matt Griswold
Agreed, not sure how that got in, made https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/71 and will check it out / add better tests. On Oct 4, 2016 3:46 PM, "Arnold Nipper" wrote: > On 04.10.2016 22:29, Chris Caputo wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Arnold Nipper wrote: > >>

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread Chris Caputo
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Arnold Nipper wrote: > On 04.10.2016 18:53, James Bensley wrote: > > On 13 September 2016 at 11:00, Stefan Pratter wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thank you for bringing this to our attention, i have opened a github ticket > >> for it here: > >> > >>

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-10-04 Thread James Bensley
On 13 September 2016 at 11:00, Stefan Pratter wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for bringing this to our attention, i have opened a github ticket > for it here: > > https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/68 > > Stefan Whilst playing the the PDB API some more I have found another

Re: [PDB Tech] PeeringDB API Discrepency

2016-09-13 Thread Stefan Pratter
Hi, Thank you for bringing this to our attention, i have opened a github ticket for it here: https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/68 Stefan On 09/09/16 17:29, James Bensley wrote: Hi All, When using the API to look at a random network I see a possible difference in behavior