[PDB-tech] [Peering-list] Re: proposed new attribute: max_allowed_peering_next_hop_latency

[Lukas Tribus]

>> +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”?
> 
> That encourages lawyering over what constitutes “remoteness.”
> I’m with Arnold, a simple RTT integer would be great.

Exactly. There is a difference between a 2ms remote-peer in the same
region and a 200ms remote peer on another continent.


>> I can't speak for other networks, but for NTT Communications the peering
>> next-hop latency is part of the public peering policy.
> 
> There are lots of requirements in the average peering policy, such as 
> geographic coverage and whatnot but we don't encode that in predefined 
> fields in pdb. What makes this value special?That fact that it impacts the data plane of all networks, not only those that
have next-hop latency in their peering policy.


lukas