Peering Experts, I am currently working on a BCOP for IPv6 Peering and Transit and would very much appreciate some expert information on why using PeeringDB is a best practice (or why its not). All opinions are welcome, but be aware that I plan on using the responses to enhance the document, which will be made publicly available as one of several (and hopefully many more) BCOPs published at http://www.ipbcop.org/. Also, if there are those among you who would like to review the entire document and perhaps volunteer as a SME to help expand and polish it, please contact me off-list and I'll get you a current draft. Thanks in advance. Cheers, ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
I am currently working on a BCOP for IPv6 Peering and Transit and would very much appreciate some expert information on why using PeeringDB is a best practice (or why its not). All opinions are welcome, but be aware that I plan on using the responses to enhance the document, which will be made publicly available as one of several (and hopefully many more) BCOPs published at http://www.ipbcop.org/.
Well, PeeringDB is basically the first stop for anyone who wants to potentially peer with you, or has received a peering request from you. (Some people even scrape the database to find potential peers based on traffic levels and existing peering locations.) A database of easy-to-access contact information, internet exchanges, and facilities is a boon to even non-peering tasks, such as finding a noc email. Basically, if you have a clue and want to peer, or even just be a good netizen, having and maintaining an up-to-date PeeringDB entry is a good idea. Simple as that. -- Darius Jahandarie
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
I am currently working on a BCOP for IPv6 Peering and Transit and would very much appreciate some expert information on why using PeeringDB is a best practice (or why its not). All opinions are welcome, but be aware that I plan on using the responses to enhance the document, which will be made publicly available as one of several (and hopefully many more) BCOPs published at http://www.ipbcop.org/.
It's a nice resource for finding out which networks are in which facilities. As someone seeking out and setting up peering sessions, it's useful to be able to search out networks that also have a couple common POPs, so that one can call or email them and ask about potential interconnection. It's certain cut down on emails that are just requests for information ("Where do you have sites? We're in these metros...", "Looks like we'd be good potential peers, what's your policy like?"). Overall -- I really like it! Cheers, jof
The goal is "Source of truth" for any peer to know information at the Exchange points as well as peering coordinator information. I think it is a great tool for the peering community and definitely useful. Cons: Will it be the next RADB? There needs to be a sustainable community to keep it running since it is a volunteer effort. Zaid On 7/18/12 8:43 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann@gmail.com> wrote:
Peering Experts,
I am currently working on a BCOP for IPv6 Peering and Transit and would very much appreciate some expert information on why using PeeringDB is a best practice (or why its not). All opinions are welcome, but be aware that I plan on using the responses to enhance the document, which will be made publicly available as one of several (and hopefully many more) BCOPs published at http://www.ipbcop.org/.
Also, if there are those among you who would like to review the entire document and perhaps volunteer as a SME to help expand and polish it, please contact me off-list and I'll get you a current draft.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers, ~Chris
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:
The goal is "Source of truth" for any peer to know information at the Exchange points as well as peering coordinator information. I think it is a great tool for the peering community and definitely useful. Cons: Will it be the next RADB? There needs to be a sustainable community to keep it running since it is a volunteer effort.
Good point. I suspect that enough large users (with money, developers, hosting, etc.) are enjoying it that it has reached a critical mass of a semi-core service that wont have a hard time getting some support going forward. --j
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof@thejof.com> wrote:
Good point. I suspect that enough large users (with money, developers, hosting, etc.) are enjoying it that it has reached a critical mass of a semi-core service that wont have a hard time getting some support going forward.
At the moment, I think there are 10-15 volunteers that help handle tickets and such, then 3-4 volunteers that help run the hardware/software. There seems to be good coverage for everything needed, as far as I can tell :). -- Darius Jahandarie
participants (4)
-
Chris Grundemann -
Darius Jahandarie -
Jonathan Lassoff -
Zaid Ali