On 25.12.2016 19:26, Joe Provo wrote: > [this time form the correct address...] > > On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Sascha Pollok wrote: >> Hi Job, et al, >> >> Let's please keep it required. Many people rely on PDB information to >> automate peering configurations. It does not happen often that we need to >> configure peering sessions that require manual input and when it happens, >> it is actually annoying. Making IP addresses optional will make more ASes >> not document them either of lazyness or weird security reasons. If someone >> thinks not disclosing them gives extra security they do have a problem >> anyway. It's easy to find out peering LAN IPs if someone wants to do >> something ugly. >> >> Please keep them required. > > Yes. > > If the [not uncommon] case of signaling intent-to-be-there is needed, > that should be simply a separate flag not an overloading of the address > field. >
Isn't there always an overloading one way or the other? Given we do yaf (yet another flag) which says intent-to-be-there. But what is the meaning of this flag when an address is added? I know the address but I'm not yet ready? Or still the original meaning. 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. 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? Cheers, Arnold -- Arnold Nipper Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net | Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | [email protected] | Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pdb-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
