[PDB Data Ownership-TF] IXP assignment IP address (netixlan) ownership (was: conditions for being listed in a facility)

[Chris Caputo]

[I updated the subject.]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> On 08.01.2020 19:06, Chris Caputo wrote:
> > Dear All:
> > 
> > The fundamental conflict which spawned this effort is the differing 
> > perspectives of an IXP and a network with respect to IP assignment at an 
> > IXP and whether or how to present or how to handle the differing data.
> > 
> 
> More precisely, the conflict arose from auto-removal of netixlan records
> and not notifying the networks when doing so.
> 
> > Is there any reason not to try to first solve that (IMHO most significant) 
> > question?
> > 
> 
> #539 [0] and #585 [1] both address this question.
> 
> 
>  * #539 proposes an additional boolean field `operational`. Esp. larger
> networks want to announce their presence at IXPs well in advance, even
> if they are not operational.
> 
>  * #585 copes with cases where the old IX-F importer would delete
> netixlan records. Now a support ticket with all parties involved is
> opened to resolve the conflict.
> 
> IMO It definitely would help if the TF comes up with a recommendation
> who is the (trusted) source of information for IP addresses.

I believe the IXP responsible for a subnet is the trusted source of 
information for IP address assignments on a subnet.

Does anyone disagree?

Chris

> Cheers
> Arnold
> 
> [0] https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/539
> [1} https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/585