[PDB-tech] Netnod Stockholm LANs same IX

[Matt Griswold]

Yeah, we now have a script that will renumber participants automatically,
it will work either way.
On Apr 16, 2016 10:38, "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin at mahtin.com> wrote:

> One questioned could be ... does this provide a mechanism to handle IX
> fabric renumbering? Presently we add the new cidr back to the existing
> fabric. Is there a codified way to handle this?
>
> Martin
>
> > On Apr 15, 2016, at 10:51 PM, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-tech/attachments/20160416/dc0ba40c/attachment-0001.html>