Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
* netravnen [170802 14:55 +0200]: > On 2 August 2017 at 13:06, Arnold Nipper wrote: > > Ideally there would be a description of *all* fields used in > > PeeringDB. > > > > Personally I always read "IPv4/6 prefixes" as ""Recommended IPv4/6 > > Prefix limit" > > Wouldn't an user friendly explanation of all the possible fields > registrants can fill in information into. Have a page/section at > http://docs.peeringdb.com documenting what the field is intended for ? +1, or better, do a schema and use for both the API and UI. Someone make an issue? :) ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
Yep, I read it as Maximum Prefix recommendation. The number also used by SIX [1] to set as maximum-prefix in their route-servers Thank you Budiwijaya [1] https://www.seattleix.net/participants/ On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > To answer my own question: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:40:47AM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: >> If we look at a record like https://peeringdb.com/net/1045, what do the >> values behind "IPv4 Prefixes" (25) and "IPv6 prefixes" (25000) >> actually mean? > > I'd like it to mean "This is what NTT generally recommends as the > maximum prefix limit on EBGP sessions where you expect NTT to announce > their customer cone", so that the listed values can be used verbatim in > provisioning systems. > > Kind regards, > > Job > ___ > User-discuss mailing list > User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
On 2/Aug/17 13:06, Arnold Nipper wrote: > Leave it as it is and add an (i) tag which explains in more detail what > the meaning of this field is. > > Ideally there would be a description of *all* fields used in PeeringDB. > > > Personally I always read "IPv4/6 prefixes" as ""Recommended IPv4/6 > Prefix limit" I'd say leave it as it is as well. Mark. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
On 2/Aug/17 11:52, Job Snijders wrote: > I'd like it to mean "This is what NTT generally recommends as the > maximum prefix limit on EBGP sessions where you expect NTT to announce > their customer cone", so that the listed values can be used verbatim in > provisioning systems. That is what we imply it to mean. Mark. ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
On 2 August 2017 at 13:06, Arnold Nipper wrote: > On 02.08.2017 11:40, Job Snijders wrote: > > > If we look at a record like https://peeringdb.com/net/1045, what do the > > values behind "IPv4 Prefixes" (25) and "IPv6 prefixes" (25000) > > actually mean? > > > > Is this the number of prefixes NTT will announce to any EBGP neighbor? > > Or to some EBGP neighbors? Or is this the recommended maximum prefix > > limit for IPv4 and IPv6? > > > > Perhaps the website would benefit from changing "IPv4 Prefixes" to > > "Recommended IPv4 Prefix limit" - however that phrasing is slightly too > > long to neatly fit in the column. (I'm not advocating to change the > > field names in the API) > > > > If we make it shorter: "Max IPv6 Prefixes" I feel that the semantics yet > > again are somewhat ambiguous. Ideas? > > > > Leave it as it is and add an (i) tag which explains in more detail what > the meaning of this field is. > > Ideally there would be a description of *all* fields used in PeeringDB. > > > Personally I always read "IPv4/6 prefixes" as ""Recommended IPv4/6 > Prefix limit" > Wouldn't an user friendly explanation of all the possible fields registrants can fill in information into. Have a page/section at http://docs.peeringdb.com documenting what the field is intended for ? Kind Regards Christoffer ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
On 02.08.2017 11:40, Job Snijders wrote: > If we look at a record like https://peeringdb.com/net/1045, what do the > values behind "IPv4 Prefixes" (25) and "IPv6 prefixes" (25000) > actually mean? > > Is this the number of prefixes NTT will announce to any EBGP neighbor? > Or to some EBGP neighbors? Or is this the recommended maximum prefix > limit for IPv4 and IPv6? > > Perhaps the website would benefit from changing "IPv4 Prefixes" to > "Recommended IPv4 Prefix limit" - however that phrasing is slightly too > long to neatly fit in the column. (I'm not advocating to change the > field names in the API) > > If we make it shorter: "Max IPv6 Prefixes" I feel that the semantics yet > again are somewhat ambiguous. Ideas? > Leave it as it is and add an (i) tag which explains in more detail what the meaning of this field is. Ideally there would be a description of *all* fields used in PeeringDB. Personally I always read "IPv4/6 prefixes" as ""Recommended IPv4/6 Prefix limit" Arnold -- Arnold Nipper email: arn...@nipper.de mobile: +49 172 2650958 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
-Original Message- From: User-discuss [mailto:user-discuss-boun...@lists.peeringdb.com] On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: 02 August 2017 10:53 To: user-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com Subject: Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics > I'd like it to mean "This is what NTT generally recommends as the maximum > prefix limit on EBGP sessions where you expect NTT to announce their customer > cone", so that the listed values can be used verbatim in provisioning systems. Wait, isn't that what everyone takes it to mean, except perhaps in the case of the smallest networks that might actually set their record to "2" or something (and presumably you'd have a floor value anyway in your automation to avoid micromanagement?) Phil ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
Re: [PDB User] "ipv4 prefixes" / "ipv6 prefixes" semantics
To answer my own question: On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:40:47AM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > If we look at a record like https://peeringdb.com/net/1045, what do the > values behind "IPv4 Prefixes" (25) and "IPv6 prefixes" (25000) > actually mean? I'd like it to mean "This is what NTT generally recommends as the maximum prefix limit on EBGP sessions where you expect NTT to announce their customer cone", so that the listed values can be used verbatim in provisioning systems. Kind regards, Job ___ User-discuss mailing list User-discuss@lists.peeringdb.com http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-discuss
