Re: PeerinDB refuses to register certain networks [was: Setting sensible max-prefix limits]

[Ben Maddison via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Hi Patrick,

On 08/18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > Of course! Including headers to show authenticity. I was very amused by the 
> > explanation of the "chicken and egg" problem. Who's creating that? The networks
> > who refuse to peer with non-peeringdb registered ASNs, or peeringdb who won't 
> > recognize ASNs that are not peering with anyone because nobody wants to peer 
> > with them because they are not registered in peeringdb because nobody wants to
> > peer with them? You get the idea.
>
> First, most networks do not require a PDB record to peer. (Silly of
> them, I know, but still true.)
>
> Second, you do not need to have a PDB record to get a link to an IXP.
> Even membership in a free IXP is sufficient for an account in PDB, as
> Grizz points out below.
>
> Third, if you have an agreement, even just an email, saying a network
> will peer with you once you have a record, that may well suffice. Have
> you asked any network to peer? Private peering (because you are not on
> an IXP) is usually reserved for networks with more than a modicum of
> traffic. If your network is large enough to qualify for private
> peering, I have trouble believing you cannot get another network to
> agree to peer so you can get a record.
>
> I guess you are right, the _Peering_DB does not register “certain”
> networks. Those networks would be ones that do not peer. Which seems
> pretty obvious to me - it is literally in the name.
A PDB record for an Internet-connected ASN, listing no IXPs or
facilities, but with a note saying approximately "We only use transit,
and don't peer" has some utility: it saves prospective peers from
finding contacts to ask and sending emails, etc.

I'd argue this is in scope for PDB. But perhaps there was additional
context to the original decision that I'm missing?

Cheers,

Ben

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: