<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">I don't understand your concern. It's self reported information, just like the as-set, the max prefix, etc.<br />
<br />
Job<br />
<br /></div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br /></div>
<div name="messageReplySection"><br />
On 12 Dec 2016, 13:59 +0100, Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper@de-cix.net>, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">On 12.12.2016 10:26, Job Snijders wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:17:19AM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">On 12.12.2016 10:06, Job Snijders wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 04:58:22AM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Jon,<br />
On 12.12.2016 04:41, Jon Nistor wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">I had a peer ask that I add an entry for the TorIX route-servers as<br />
entities in peeringDB as their system uses automation against<br />
peeringDB for configurations, etc.<br />
<br />
It got me thinking, could it be possible to add in an option for<br />
route-servers under Internet Exchange points that one could query<br />
via the API? Would it be worth it? Is there an alternative to this<br />
that would work (i've listed one ref below).<br />
<br />
ref: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/11429<br /></blockquote>
<br />
route servers belong to an ASN / network. Simply configure them as<br />
networks as did some other 50 IXP already (hint: search for "route<br />
server").<br />
<br />
What else is needed?<br /></blockquote>
<br />
I think what is requested here is a programmatic way to establish ahead<br />
of time whether the BGP speaker will confirm to RFC 4271 or RFC 7947. I<br />
agree with you that putting the words "Route Server" in the name of the<br />
"net" object is an excellent start, but that's mostly there for humans.<br />
<br />
Will Hargrave brought up some configuration settings that are only<br />
applicable to Route Servers and not to normal peers. (And I'd like to<br />
add to the list whether do "set ip next-hop peer-address" or not)<br />
<br />
A developer can already identify which ASNs belong to the operators of<br />
an IXP by following the organisational object:<br />
<br />
example: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/11429 belongs to<br />
https://www.peeringdb.com/org/7 and https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/14<br />
also belongs to https://www.peeringdb.com/org/7<br />
<br />
What is lacking however, is for 'net/11429' to declare "I am a route<br />
server, treat me as one".<br />
<br />
Maybe a boolean should be added to "is_routeserver" to the 'net' object<br />
data model, which can be set to true if the ASN acts as a RFC 7947<br />
compliant BGP speaker.<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<br />
Looks like a straight approach but might be not failsafe, because<br />
everyone can set this flag.<br />
<br />
Wouldn't it make sense to wire the ASN used by the route servers in the<br />
IXP object?<br /></blockquote>
<br />
No, a programmer can already search for the ASNs connected to the IXP<br />
operated by the IXP themselves, I should you how net/11429 -> org/7 &&<br />
ix/14 -> org/7. All that is needed is a boolean indicating whether a<br />
network is a route server or not. The net effect is that you have a<br />
programmatic way to deduce which one is the office network, and which<br />
one is the route server.<br />
<br />
Also, I've seen Route Servers in the wild which were not operated by the<br />
IXP themselves. I'd consider it a feature if everyone can set the flag. :-)<br />
<br /></blockquote>
<br />
What does it help when everyone is able to set the flag and you can't<br />
trust that this really is a route server net?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Arnold<br />
<br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Pdb-tech mailing list<br />
Pdb-tech@lists.peeringdb.com<br />
http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech<br /></blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>