[PDB Tech] allow empty IP field or not?

[Ren Provo]

It should be required.  Thanks!

Cheers! -renster at apple.com

*NOTE* peering-NOC at group.apple.com often responds to pending activations faster than I do!  Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus

> On Dec 25, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Sometimes people want to disclose their presence at an Internet
> Exchange, but don't want to disclose their IP address.
> 
> Should PeeringDB allow the IPv4 and IPv6 field to be either of the
> following?
> 
>    "a valid globally unique IP address"
>    "" (empty)
> 
> Or should PDB only accept valid globally unique IP addresses as value
> for the IP Field?
> 
> It appears we've gone back and forth between allowing empty and not
> allowing empty as is visible here: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/1138
> (currently empty is not allowed).
> 
> An argument against 'empty' is that from an automation perspective the
> 'empty' value is quite useless.
> 
> Based on the outcome of this discussion I'd like to either clean up the
> database, or popularise the use of the 'empty ip field' where
> applicable.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-tech mailing list
> Pdb-tech at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-tech/attachments/20161225/ce62e075/attachment-0003.html>