[PDB Data Ownership-TF] IXP assignment IP address (netixlan) ownership

Arnold Nipper arnold at peeringdb.com
Fri Jan 24 23:40:36 PST 2020


On 25.01.2020 02:30, Chris Caputo wrote:

> On 25.01.2020 01:31, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>> Again: if there is a conflict, data *must* stay intact and conflict
>> resolution has to happen asap with all parties involved.
> Network-provided data stays intact in the netixlan table, but it is 
> disputable (hence this discussion) that it should be public in such as way 
> as to inform provisioning.  I believe the IXP should have the option of 
> having a say in that matter, since it is their address space, and their 
> fabric which can be affected.

IMO we are running in circles somehow.

We want to have the IX-F importer, but also want to make it safe in the
sense that data is not deleted/gets invisible in case of an error on
either side.

As we are not able to resolve a conflict automatically w/o causing
interruption of services, the conflict has to be brought to attention
immediately by notifying each party involved and then get resolved.

AC will do this resolution. And I fully agree that the IXP should be the
authoritative source of information regarding (asn, ipv4, ipv6).

If there is anything we can do to minimize the work of AC w/o violating
above mentioned principles we should implement it.

Arnold Nipper
email: arnold at peeringdb.com
mobile: +49 172 2650958

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/dataownership-tf/attachments/20200125/4e22708e/attachment.sig>

More information about the DataOwnership-TF mailing list