[PDB-tech] proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency

[Florian Hibler]

Hey tech,

+1 here. I pretty much like that idea. Instead of the latency it's
maybe enough to use a tick-box which says "remote-peer"?

Best regards,
Florian

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> wrote:
> On 19.04.2016 17:19, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> I propose a new attribute for network records called
>> "max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency".
>>
>
> Excellent idea! Where did this idea only came from ;-)
>
>> The purpose of this attribute is to signal to other interested parties
>> (human peering coordinators looking for new interconnection, or computer
>> scripts generating route server configs) what the maximum unidirectional
>> latency can be between the two (potentially) peering routers.
>>
>
> Who of us really is able to do measurement of unidirectional latency?
> Hence I would propose to stick to some sort of RTT (if I understand your
> post in the other thread correctly it would be
> Min(RTT_of_a_series_of_pings)/2))
>
> Otoh I do not really care as long as it is easy to measure the latency.
> Doing it via ping *is* easy.
>
>
> Kind regards
> Arnold
> --
> Arnold Nipper
> Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder
>
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main |
> Germany | www.de-cix.net | Phone +49 69 1730902 22 |
> Mobile +49 172 2650958 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 |
> arnold.nipper at de-cix.net | Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa |
> Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-tech mailing list
> Pdb-tech at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
>



-- 
Florian Hibler <fhibler at peeringdb.com>
PeeringDB Administrator