[PDB Tech] route-server information add-on

[Arnold Nipper]

On 12.12.2016 14:25, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:58:51PM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>> What does it help when everyone is able to set the flag and you can't
>> trust that this really is a route server net?
> 
> It helps on the configuration generation side:
> 
>     If "route server" == true:
>         no bgp enforce-first-as
>         no bgp next-hop peer-address
>         no as_path_filter "^$peer_asn_"
>     else:
>         bgp enforce-first-as
>         bgp next-hop peer-address
>         as_path_filter XYZ
> 
> The above pseudo code is assuming people generate config straight from
> PDB, in addition to the above, a PDB user can programmatically enforce
> their:
> 
>     "we peer with every route server"-policy
>     or "we dont peer with any route servers"-policy
>     or "we only peer with route servers operated by the IXP themselves"-policy
> 
> So one could argue there is a wide varierty of decisions that can be
> assisted if your peers self-report whether they are perform a Route
> Server function or not.
> 
> All data retrieved from PDB must be validated against an operators own
> policy and procedures. I always consider PDB data to be a raw resources,
> this does not have to do with (lack of) trust, but rather with making
> assisted choices.
> 
> Hope this clarifies the use case.
> 

The use case is quite clear. It's more about where and what to store.
And the more I think about that I come to the conclusion that this
information belongs to the peering IP and not to the network. So far you
can tag the IP that it is an RS Peer. What you would need additionally
is that the IP is an RS itself. Does that make sense?



Arnold

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-tech/attachments/20161212/519681c4/attachment.sig>