PeerinDB refuses to register certain networks [was: Setting sensible max-prefix limits]

Thu Aug 19 15:32:21 UTC 2021

I agree with you in the utility of that, but sort of as a side topic...

I wonder how many ASes are out there that have any significant volume of
traffic/multi-site presences, but are exclusively 100% transit customers,
do not have any PNIs at major carrier hotels, and are not members of any
IX.

What would be a good example of such an AS and how big of a network would
it be? Undoubtedly there are some enterprise end user type customers set up
like that, but I can't imagine they receive a very large volume of
unsolicited peering requests.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:32 AM Ben Maddison via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> On 08/18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > > Of course! Including headers to show authenticity. I was very amused
> by the
> > > explanation of the "chicken and egg" problem. Who's creating that? The
> networks
> > > who refuse to peer with non-peeringdb registered ASNs, or peeringdb
> who won't
> > > recognize ASNs that are not peering with anyone because nobody wants
> to peer
> > > with them because they are not registered in peeringdb because nobody
> wants to
> > > peer with them? You get the idea.
> >
> > First, most networks do not require a PDB record to peer. (Silly of
> > them, I know, but still true.)
> >
> > Second, you do not need to have a PDB record to get a link to an IXP.
> > Even membership in a free IXP is sufficient for an account in PDB, as
> > Grizz points out below.
> >
> > Third, if you have an agreement, even just an email, saying a network
> > will peer with you once you have a record, that may well suffice. Have
> > you asked any network to peer? Private peering (because you are not on
> > an IXP) is usually reserved for networks with more than a modicum of
> > traffic. If your network is large enough to qualify for private
> > peering, I have trouble believing you cannot get another network to
> > agree to peer so you can get a record.
> >
> > I guess you are right, the _Peering_DB does not register “certain”
> > networks. Those networks would be ones that do not peer. Which seems
> > pretty obvious to me - it is literally in the name.
> >
> A PDB record for an Internet-connected ASN, listing no IXPs or
> facilities, but with a note saying approximately "We only use transit,
> and don't peer" has some utility: it saves prospective peers from
> finding contacts to ask and sending emails, etc.
>
> I'd argue this is in scope for PDB. But perhaps there was additional
> context to the original decision that I'm missing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210819/4ff109fa/attachment.html>