search

peeringdb / peeringdb

Server code for https://www.peeringdb.com/
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
355 stars 112 forks source link

Add "Peerings" to "ASN" records #1093

Open whitehat-alin opened 2 years ago

whitehat-alin commented 2 years ago

So, taking inspiration from rt-bgp.he.net where we can take a look into our peers in r/t, I would like to propose a similar function for PeeringDB.

The fact many route collectors are closing their projects-- or there's no supports for ADD-PATH-- or many of ASNs are based on a nonprofit with a lowest investment and being in an Internet eXchange are not easier or cheaper for them. That will make easier for users, this should also help to reflect on our peering records by using just PeeringDB.

AS51999

Many thanks!

whitehat-alin commented 2 years ago

I come back with an alternative solution for this, what if PDB will parse the data, and found the peerings by submiting your 'bgpctl show summary' ? Then 2 data sources can be used as input for validating the dataset otherwise to be showing as unverified if theres no mutual sessions. If the mutual 'show sum' are not submitted in the matter of time then they are automatically deleted. By using validation in this way then there will not be any conflict or bad interest.

root@edge-bx-001:~# bgpctl show sum
Neighbor                   AS    MsgRcvd    MsgSent  OutQ Up/Down  State/PrfRcvd
BGP4                      999      21791      21792     0 01w0d13h      0/100
BGP6                      999      21791      21792     0 01w0d13h      0/100
RRC25                   12654      21793    2092499     0 2d17h40m      0/100
RRCXX                   51999    3330048      21769     0 01w0d13h 278202/500000
leovegoda commented 2 years ago

I'm not sure I understand the problem that needs solving. Can you expand on that?

arnoldnipper commented 2 years ago

@whitehat-alin wants to add peering relationships to PeeringDB. Each member provides its peerings. And in case, both parties agree, this relationship is added to PeeringDB.

As this is highly dynamic data, I personally give this request a -1. If people are interested in you peerings, they can check your LG

leovegoda commented 2 years ago

I understand what is being requested. I'd like to understand who benefits from it. Is it a large group?

martinhannigan commented 2 years ago

Agree with below. Good idea, but may be better done elsewhere. -1

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:08 Arnold Nipper @.***> wrote:

@whitehat-alin https://github.com/whitehat-alin wants to add peering relationships to PeeringDB. Each member provides its peerings. And in case, both parties agree, this relationship is added to PeeringDB.

As this is highly dynamic data, I personally give this request a -1. If people are interested in you peerings, they can check your LG

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/1093#issuecomment-1111186808, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQVQPGNAUJOAOXNQVK3VHFRA7ANCNFSM5JRJS3KA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

whitehat-alin commented 2 years ago

Let's start with the beginning, Peering Database (aka PeeringDB), the name itself it showing as that there can be possible to explore our peerings or informations about it. Imma right?

Methodology are simple, I don't see the difficulty part or the highly dynamic data, if you see this opportunity in this way then what can say about IX-F files ?

My idea in the same way as IX-F does:

  1. Submitting 'bgpctl show sum'
  2. Running an multihop BGP server and parsing the data in real time (bgpctl show ip bgp peer-as ASnum)
  3. Using RIPEstat Data API (stat.ripe.net/data/asn-neighbours/data.json?resource=ASnum)
arnoldnipper commented 2 years ago

Let's start with the beginning, Peering Database (aka PeeringDB), the name itself it showing as that there can be possible to explore our peerings or information about it. Imma right?

So and so. PDB stores information about

  • Submitting 'bgpctl show sum'

This format may work for some router OS but not in general. Is there a standard? Or a de facto standard like IX-F JSON?

And as you pointed out, there are multiple sources of information for what you are proposing. PDB is there to get your peerings configures, not to show who you are peering with. That's where your LG comes into play.