[PDB-tech] Netnod Stockholm LANs same IX

[Matt Griswold]

* Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> [160417 00:15 +0200]:
> On 16.04.2016 23:42, Matt Griswold wrote:
> > * Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> [160416 19:59 +0200]:  
> >> On 16.04.2016 07:35, Matt Griswold wrote:  
> >>> Dropping it in favor of each LAN being a separate IX, while moving
> >>>   the fields on the LAN record to the base IX, seems to be a much
> >>>   better solution. The only issue I see in getting rid of the
> >>>   separate LANs on the same IX record is association to a parent
> >>>   of sorts, and I think the Org + area covered does that
> >>>   adequately.
> >>>
> >>> Would love to hear any feedback on that - it will be one of the
> >>>   first topics for the newly forming Product Committee.
> >>>    
> >>
> >> So how would you distinguish an IXP having a LAN with multiple
> >>   IP's on it from an IXP running two separate LAN's.  
> >
> > Very simply, the LAN would show up as another IX, and the multiple
> > prefixes would show up as multiple prefixes.
> >   
> 
> I guess we mean the same :) ... e.g. LINX in London runs two IX's.
> Same does Netnod in Stockholm
Maybe so!

> 
> >> Imho the cleanest approach really is to have to different IXP LAN.
> >>
> >> "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Albert
> >>   Einstein)  
> >
> > The IX Lan concept is a whole new table, multiple relations, and
> > querable object type to fit something that's used by 3 IXPs in the
> > world, and I still haven't seen a use case for having it there.
> > 
> > There have been a couple reasons to get rid of it already tho.
> >   
> 
> Now I'm unsure what you are talking about? What is IX LAN?
It's more of an internal thing, however exposed via the API, that allows
a single IX to have multiple "IXLan" objects.