So let’s close the discussion? :-) Empty field not allowed? Furthermore, people that just blindly configure based on an address popping up in peeringdb should at least have consulted with their peer, I hope. What we then need is not a reference database which is what PDB is today, but a workflow component which would allow both peers to acknowledge that both are happy to peer on certain IXP’s between certain IP pairs. > On 28 Dec 2016, at 17:38, Matt Griswold <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Kristian Larsson <[email protected]> [161228 15:24 +0100]: >>> 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. > > Agree completely, am in favor of IP being required and eventually > validated to be in a prefix listed by the IX. > _______________________________________________ > Pdb-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
_______________________________________________ Pdb-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
