On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:39:05PM +0200, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:

Colleagues,

1. basic routing hygiene & BGP security

Would you consider not deaggregating your prefixes part of basic routing hygiene? I do. :-) I can understand that if a network has two different locations, with no backbone, that split up their space in two. But all to often I see networks announcing both more specific and covering aggregate, with only one endpoint, so the more specifics just waste space.

2. anti-spoofing 3. topology and connectivity

Maybe a strong recommendation can be put in the code that a participant promises to keep peeringdb.com up2date?

4. collaboration and coordination

Here too peeringdb often plays a vital role in contacting the other party to cooperate to resolve an issue.

Any of these items? Only 4? Anything missing we'd like to include?

5. Enabling others in debugging efforts Maybe this falls under under one of the four other subjects, but I desperatly want networks to offer looking glasses from multiple points in their network, for both IPv4 and IPv6 with BGP, ping and traceroute, without a captcha, without a members login :-)

- I also got a comment regarding "Participation Requirements",

1. Endorsement from the management (C-level, public statement)? 2. Demonstration of commitment through a set of measurable metrics - what is feasible to measure? 3. Public endorsement on the website (leave internal specifics to the ISP and leave assessment to the operator community) 4. Something different

1 or 3 is fine by me. I envision slapping networks with the code when they publicly endorse it but don't abide by it. One of the strongest drivers in this industry is the fear for name and shame I suppose, we all want to act like well educated boys because everything is visible. :-) Kind regards, Job