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@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 >