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

[Chris Caputo]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Chris Caputo wrote:
> [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?

Or better yet, to make sure, do others agree?  Maybe we are unanimous in 
that belief...

Thanks,
Chris

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