April 2016 - Pdb-tech

[PDB-tech] Link network to facility via API
by Rob Hagens 26 Apr '16

26 Apr '16

Hi, I'm brand new to this API, but I do understand the concepts. There are a number of facilities where Zayo provides transit but we are not listed. I'd like to correct that. To-wit, I'm trying to figure out the API calls needed to link Zayo as a network to a facility. I've read the API documentation and am still unclear. Does anyone have a description of the major objects, their purpose and relationships I could look at? (I've read https://www.peeringdb.com/apidocs/ but it is missing the "big picture", at least for me...). Thanks in advance, Rob -- VP, IP Architecture | *Zay**o** Bandwidth* 1805 29th Street | Suite 2050 | Boulder, CO 80301 303.330.0963 w | 303.881.6047 m | rob.hagens(a)zayo.com

3 3

[PDB-tech] proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency
by Job Snijders 26 Apr '16

26 Apr '16

Hi PDB, I propose a new attribute for network records called "max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency". The purpose of this attribute is to signal to other interested parties (human peering coordinators looking for new interconnection, or computer scripts generating route server configs) what the maximum unidirectional latency can be between the two (potentially) peering routers. Some networks have as part of their peering policy that there will be no more then a certain number of miliseconds latency between the direct BGP peers - it would be good to be able to express that consideration in PeeringDB. This value is ONLY intended to express something about eBGP inter-domain peering links, not backbone links. The default value can be "" (undefined), other allowed values would be positive non-zero integers. The value's datatype is miliseconds. I expect some IP carriers to use the value as part of signalling their peering requirements, and some (distributed/remotely peered) IXPs to use the value to assist in their route server configuration generation process. Thoughts? Kind regards, Job

7 11

Re: [PDB-tech] proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency
by LOOS Eric (BCS/CBU) 25 Apr '16

25 Apr '16

Hi, I am not 100% familiar with the internals so just to make sure I understand; this attribute is intended to signal to prospective peers (as part of a peering policy) that you have as a network a particular max latency peering policy. As far as I understand it, you would not request a network to document the latency every particular peering record has to the actual next L3 hop, correct? I understand the comment about lawyering over a definition of remote peering, but I don't think it is that much of an issue. Remote peering is very much an accepted way of connecting to IX'es and it has many valid use cases. Furthermore 'are you using remote peering' is a very understandable question for new participants (which are most likely not to meet the requirement). Therefore I would indeed stick with an easy definition of a policy requirement saying remote peering: 'accepted, not accepted, no preference' In addition, again if I understand it correctly, this only works one way? i.e. someone checking whether they can peer with NTT will find the max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency attribute and have to decide whether they can connect, it doesn't work from the point of view of a network seeking to peer with all non-remote peering members on an exchange? That would also be very valuable but calls for a remote peering record on each IX connection. Luckily, this could be maintained by the IX'es in most cases because they know whom came in via a partner. As such, indeed it is a policy requirement, but it is important enough next to ratio requirements, multiple locations, ... given the amount of new customers joining in this way. Just my 2 cents :) -- Eric Loos Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:29:27 +0200 From: Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper(a)de-cix.net> To: "pdb-tech(a)lists.peeringdb.com" <pdb-tech(a)lists.peeringdb.com> Subject: Re: [PDB-tech] proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency Message-ID: <5717A057.7020808(a)de-cix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 19.04.2016 17:19, Job Snijders wrote: > I propose a new attribute for network records called > "max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency". > Excellent idea! Where did this idea only came from ;-) > The purpose of this attribute is to signal to other interested parties > (human peering coordinators looking for new interconnection, or > computer scripts generating route server configs) what the maximum > unidirectional latency can be between the two (potentially) peering routers. > Who of us really is able to do measurement of unidirectional latency? Hence I would propose to stick to some sort of RTT (if I understand your post in the other thread correctly it would be Min(RTT_of_a_series_of_pings)/2)) Otoh I do not really care as long as it is easy to measure the latency. Doing it via ping *is* easy. Kind regards Arnold -- Arnold Nipper Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net | Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | arnold.nipper(a)de-cix.net | Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 ________________________________ **** DISCLAIMER**** http://www.bics.com/maildisclaimer/

2 1

[PDB-tech] Netnod Stockholm LANs same IX
by Paul Vlaar 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

I am wondering why Netnod Stockholm is listed as one IX in peeringdb_ix, when in fact it has 2 LANs. LINX also has 2 LANs and these are both listed as a separate IX: mysql> select id, name, name_long from peeringdb_ix where name like '%linx%lan'; +-----+------------------+-------------------------------+ | id | name | name_long | +-----+------------------+-------------------------------+ | 18 | LINX Juniper LAN | London Internet Exchange Ltd. | | 321 | LINX Extreme LAN | London Internet Exchange Ltd. | +-----+------------------+-------------------------------+ mysql> select id, name, name_long from peeringdb_ix where name like '%netnod stockholm%'; +----+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | id | name | name_long | +----+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 70 | Netnod Stockholm | Netnod Internet Exchange i Sverige AB | +----+------------------+---------------------------------------+ Since recently we have been connected to Netnod and have an IP address on both STH-A and STH-B. Now, some code I have written expects for each LAN to be associated to a separate IX entity as per the PeeringDB database. Perhaps that is a wrong assumption, but I'm just trying to figure out the logic why LINX has that split and Netnod Stockholm has not. ~paul

9 21

[PDB-tech] peeringdb sync - sometimes gets errors.
by Martin J. Levy 16 Apr '16

16 Apr '16

All, Occasionally I get errors from doing a sync command. > django.core.exceptions.ValidationError: {'name': [u'Organization with this Name already exists.']} I've gone back-n-forth on trying to fix this; however I realized I should share this sql script that I run prior to "sync" in order to fix this. Once you run "sync" you have a clean copy of PeeringDB. This can be found at https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb-py/pull/7 Enjoy, Martin ----------- $ cat drop-tables-peeringdb.sql DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_facility; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_ix; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_ix_facility; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_ixlan; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_ixlan_prefix; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_network; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_network_contact; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_network_facility; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_network_ixlan; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS peeringdb_organization; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_group; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_group_permissions; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_permission; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_user; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_user_groups; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS auth_user_user_permissions; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS django_admin_log; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS django_content_type; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS django_migrations; DROP TABLE IF EXISTS django_session; $

4 3

[PDB-tech] Date of creation/update of records
by Denis Fondras 16 Apr '16

16 Apr '16

Hello all, Is there a way to know the date of creation or update of a PDB record ? Denis

2 1

[PDB-tech] PeeringDB's "Product Development Committee"
by Martin J. Levy 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

I'm at GPF in Hollywood where Aaron Hughes just presented the PeeringDB 2.0 update. So I just did this ... who else is going to do the same? Martin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Martin J. Levy <mahtin(a)mahtin.com> > Date: Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:29 PM > Subject: Martin Levy for the Product Development Committee > To: productcom(a)lists.peeringdb.com > > Hi PeeringDB, > Please add my name for the Product Development Committee > Martin

1 0

[PDB-tech] POC sync not complete
by Paul Vlaar 13 Apr '16

13 Apr '16

Just did an initial "peeringdb sync" and noticed the number of POCs is not complete: pvlaar@peering:~$ peeringdb sync [...] Starting new HTTPS connection (1): beta.peeringdb.com "GET /api/poc?since=0 HTTP/1.1" 302 160 Starting new HTTPS connection (1): www.peeringdb.com "GET /api/poc?since=0 HTTP/1.1" 200 None poc last update 0 225 changed data to be processed 225 225 seems way too low. When I go via my browser (https://www.peeringdb.com/api/poc?since=0) I do seem to get the full list. What may be the problem here? ~paul

4 9