[PDB-tech] Netnod Stockholm LANs same IX

[Martin J. Levy]

There's different setups that should be handled. 

 - two LANs, two IX names, two IP ranges
     (LINX Juniper & LINX Extreme)
 - two IP ranges on one IX name
    (STHIX with 1500 & 9000 MTU LANs)
    (ESPANIX with two LANs)
 - two LANs on two IX names
    (NETNOD A&B with 1500 & 4420 MTUs)

That means the complex table setup has value. Mind you; it's unclear how the end user would use this. ESPANIX has been very free form under PDB1.0

I'd vote for complexity as long as it matches how data can be created by the IX for (let's say) the Euro-IX json data.

Martin

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Matt Griswold <grizz at 20c.com> wrote:
> 
> * Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> [160417 00:15 +0200]:
>>> On 16.04.2016 23:42, Matt Griswold wrote:
>>> * Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> [160416 19:59 +0200]:  
>>>>> On 16.04.2016 07:35, Matt Griswold wrote:  
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> So how would you distinguish an IXP having a LAN with multiple
>>>>  IP's on it from an IXP running two separate LAN's.  
>>> 
>>> Very simply, the LAN would show up as another IX, and the multiple
>>> prefixes would show up as multiple prefixes.
>> 
>> I guess we mean the same :) ... e.g. LINX in London runs two IX's.
>> Same does Netnod in Stockholm
> Maybe so!
> 
>> 
>>>> Imho the cleanest approach really is to have to different IXP LAN.
>>>> 
>>>> "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Albert
>>>>  Einstein)  
>>> 
>>> The IX Lan concept is a whole new table, multiple relations, and
>>> querable object type to fit something that's used by 3 IXPs in the
>>> world, and I still haven't seen a use case for having it there.
>>> 
>>> There have been a couple reasons to get rid of it already tho.
>> 
>> Now I'm unsure what you are talking about? What is IX LAN?
> It's more of an internal thing, however exposed via the API, that allows
> a single IX to have multiple "IXLan" objects.
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-tech mailing list
> Pdb-tech at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech