<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#ff00ff" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Hi Job, et al,<br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#ff00ff" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#ff00ff" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">I agree with Sascha's comment: "Let's please keep it required. Many people rely on PDB information to automate peering configurations. (...) Making IP addresses optional will make more ASes not document them either of lazyness or weird security reasons. If someone thinks not disclosing them gives extra security they do have a problem anyway. (...) "</font><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;color:rgb(255,0,255)">Especially the laziness part of the argument! You will (to a small degree) risk a fall in data quality for an unknown number of the networks listed in PeeringDB for this reason.</div><div><div class="gmail-m_-4373407446515646992gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="1"><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff"><br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff">Venlig hilsen / Best Regards</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff"><br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff">Christoffer</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff"><br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff">E: netravnen (at) gmail (dot) com</font></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" color="#ff00ff"><a href="https://plus.google.com/116152221839018754167" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/<wbr>116152221839018754167</a></font></div><div style="font-style:italic;font-family:monospace,monospace"><br></div></font></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 December 2016 at 15:15, Sascha Pollok <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sp@iphh.net" target="_blank">sp@iphh.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:black">
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black">Hi Job, et al,</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black">Let's please keep it required.
Many people rely on PDB information to automate peering configurations. It
does not happen often that we need to configure peering sessions that
require manual input and when it happens, it is actually annoying. Making
IP addresses optional will make more ASes not document them either of
lazyness or weird security reasons. If someone thinks not disclosing them
gives extra security they do have a problem anyway. It's easy to find out
peering LAN IPs if someone wants to do something ugly.</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black">Please keep them required.</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black">Merry xmas<span class="gmail-m_-4373407446515646992HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Sascha</font></span></p><div><div class="gmail-m_-4373407446515646992h5">
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black;font-family:sans-serif"></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black;font-family:sans-serif">On 25.
December 2016 13:33:04 Job Snijders <<a href="mailto:job@instituut.net" target="_blank">job@instituut.net</a>> wrote:</p>
</div></div><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;color:black;font-family:sans-serif"></p><div><div class="gmail-m_-4373407446515646992h5">>
Perhaps a different way of phrasing the question:<br>
><br>
> When you indicate you are a participant of an IXP, should entering an
IP address be optional?<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
> Job<br>
><br>
> On 25 Dec 2016, 12:39 +0100, Job Snijders <<a href="mailto:job@instituut.net" target="_blank">job@instituut.net</a>>,
wrote:<br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>> Sometimes people want to disclose their presence at an Internet<br>
>> Exchange, but don't want to disclose their IP address.<br>
>><br>
>> Should PeeringDB allow the IPv4 and IPv6 field to be either of the<br>
>> following?<br>
>><br>
>> "a valid globally unique IP address"<br>
>> "" (empty)<br>
>><br>
>> Or should PDB only accept valid globally unique IP addresses as
value<br>
>> for the IP Field?<br>
>><br>
>> It appears we've gone back and forth between allowing empty and
not<br>
>> allowing empty as is visible here: <a href="https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/1138" target="_blank">https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/1<wbr>138</a><br>
>> (currently empty is not allowed).<br>
>><br>
>> An argument against 'empty' is that from an automation perspective
the<br>
>> 'empty' value is quite useless.<br>
>><br>
>> Based on the outcome of this discussion I'd like to either clean
up the<br>
>> database, or popularise the use of the 'empty ip field' where<br>
>> applicable.<br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Job<br>
><br>
><br>
><br></div></div>
> ----------<span><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Pdb-tech mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-tech@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-tech@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi<wbr>-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech</a><br>
</span><p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pdb-tech mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pdb-tech@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-tech@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi<wbr>-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>