On 1/31/19 12:36 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2019 at 23:10 AM Ren Provo <ren.provo@gmail.com> wrote:
You probably should remove sessions with networks explicitly *not* participating in route servers versus displaying them on a global shame list. And so it begins — yet another discussion on what does the word "responsibility" really mean.
Given that e.g. the peering facility in Amazon, according to an adjacent NANOG ML thread, is in deep deep trouble since Nov 2018, just shutting down sessions with all of the entries in that shame list is likely to cause huge disruption and disappoinment.
-- Töma
What triggered that part of the discussion is a logical fallacy along the lines of: if A is true, then B is true. B is true, therefore A is true. Here: all networks that didn't already change their peering IP are not yet connected to the updated route-server. Some networks are not connected to any route-server. Therefore, those networks did not yet change their peering IP. I think you can see what's wrong with that statement.. it does not follow. That has nothing to do with peering department resources, but everything to do with the chosen peering strategy. Best regards, Martijn