[PDB-tech] Netnod Stockholm LANs same IX

[Chris Caputo]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016, Matt Griswold wrote:
> * "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin at mahtin.com> [160414 13:52 -0700]:
> > +1 
> > 
> > This could not be handled by PDB1.0 cleanly however 2.0 can
> > handlev it. Same for some otter IXs like this.
> > 
> > How do we update the DB to add data to the MTUs and/or VLAN numbers
> > columns and more? Should NETNOD request this?
>
> Netnod can (and should ;) do it themselves, yes - the new permissions
> model supports full control by IX operators. Any other IXPs in similar
> situations should as well and may email support at peeringdb.com if
> they'd like help doing so.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the IX LAN separation - it was used in part to help
> with the Euro-IX/IX-F database sync, and seemed like a great idea. In
> practice I think it overly complicates everything it touches to offer a
> tiny bit more description to what is really just an edge case.
> 
> Dropping it in favor of each LAN being a separate IX, while moving the
> fields on the LAN record to the base IX, seems to be a much better
> solution. The only issue I see in getting rid of the separate LANs on
> the same IX record is association to a parent of sorts, and I think the
> Org + area covered does that adequately.
> 
> Would love to hear any feedback on that - it will be one of the first
> topics for the newly forming Product Committee.

Separation of ix records by VLAN sounds fine to me.  Right now looking at:

  https://peeringdb.com/ix/13

is confusing because there are addresses from multiple VLANs being shown 
in the same list without a VLAN label.  The Altopia entries being a prime 
example.

If not separation, maybe a selector on the "Peers at this Exchange Point" 
would work.

Thanks,
Chris