Eric, > So let’s close the discussion? :-) Empty field not allowed?
I'm not in favor of an empty field; but I can read the tea leaves so (for arguments sake) let's just allow it! I'm pretty sure that will cause issues down the road; but maybe there's a mitigation process we can devise. > 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. Which is where I gave to solidly disagree with you! Let me explain. Either PeeringDB is definitive or it's not. If we state "it's not" then you will see a mass-defection from both its use along with its support. I can't accept the "it's not" option. It's the job of all associated with PeeringDB to build the most comprehensive database that can (and should) be relied upon fully. Period. Martin PS: I'll kick off a new thread about my "mitigation process". _______________________________________________ Pdb-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-tech
