[PDB Tech] allow empty IP field or not?

[Kristian Larsson]

On 2016-12-28 15:13, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> On 28.12.2016 01:03, Joe Provo wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:55:22AM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
>>> Same is for privacy. If a network doesn't want to disclose its IP there
>>> may be reasons for it. Otherwise it wouldn't do so.
>>
>> The "reason" is weird or useless at best IME.

A little late to the game here, but I have to +1 this. Privacy shouldn't 
be a reason to not publish the IP a member has at an IX.


> I can't say why some networks do that. But I'm sure some do it by
> purpose. Make it mandatory would at least annoy them.
>
> Otoh we also have the plan that IP information should come from the IXP
> and not from networks.

I like this suggestion but it certainly means you can't overload the 
field, right!? Either a network is a member of an IXP or they are not. 
If they are, the IXP will provide IP information about the member and 
peeringdb can be populated with this. What if the IXP assigned v6 but 
the member is not using it? I still think the assigned v6 address should 
be in peeringdb and either we rely on YAF to signify presence / 
configured or we suggest to other members that they shouldn't blindly 
configure peering sessions. A simple ping / ARP / ND check before 
configuring a peer seems simple enough.

Or do you let the member fill in the data and then you get the data from 
the IXP and show a little green "verified by IXP" check mark next to it 
if they match up?


>>> Imho all we need is a common understanding what something means. Does it
>>> really hurt if we allow an empty IP address?  Does it break any automation?
>>
>> yes. folks have to trap for that case, and it is indeterminate:
>> intentional? user error? IX error? etc
>>
>>
>
> With PDB 1.0 you had to enter a value even if that was not an IP
> address. Since PDB 2.0 we do type checking however do not enforce to set
> an IP.
>
> Summarizing the discussion so far I have the impression that
>
>  * IP address must be set (IPv4 OR IPv6)
>
>  * YAF for indicating "will show up soon" would be great as well

I don't know about this. Does it really matter? I know people like to 
mark their intended / future presence on an IX but there are lots of 
habits that people have for no apparent reason. Some send emails to the 
IX mailing list saying "we will soon announce prefix X, please update 
your filters" - does anyone actually care? If you have strict prefix 
filtering (some say you should!), don't you just generate that from RIR 
data!? That is, that email serves no function whatsoever.

What is the raison d'être for the flag?

    kll