[172784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Listing or google map of peering exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Wed Jul 9 17:10:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:10:18 -0700
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <F7B1E944-7242-4F01-8CB0-1CC7E51C0F38@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_56BF0A4B-8F7E-4466-8C54-0C9393CD2C05
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Jul 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
> On Jul 09, 2014, at 16:03 , Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>> it=92s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions =
(knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).
>=20
> Is that a good idea?
>=20
> For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with =
as42 (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I =
get the same data as peering with both?
>=20
> It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the =
same prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of =
the other does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV).
There are a lot of these things that seem self-evident to a human in =
specific cases, but when you write a rule to implement the =
apparently-self-evident-specific-case, it winds up creating something =
unanticipated elsewhere. The more you try to have common code that gets =
applied uniformly across multiple tools, the more you wind up with =
unexpected results. So, there are times when people want to know that =
AS42 and AS3856 are both PCH, and there are times when they want to know =
that they=92re different ASes with different routing policies.
I=92ll report back when I know whether or how we=92re over-uniquing that =
number. In all likelihood, we=92re applying a ruleset that=92s used in =
multiple tools, and someone thought it made sense to aggregate more in a =
different tool. But that=92s just speculation, and I=92ll know more =
when our staff who maintain that have finished looking through that =
section of code and get back to me.
-Bill
--Apple-Mail=_56BF0A4B-8F7E-4466-8C54-0C9393CD2C05
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org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=7h90
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_56BF0A4B-8F7E-4466-8C54-0C9393CD2C05--
