[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

peeringdb accuracy research

Dear fellow networkers,

I need your help!

For the good of PeeringDB I am researching the accuracy of the current PeeringDB
data set. We plan to compare three sources of information: peeringdb itself,
publicly available listings from IXP operators ... and the ultimate source of
truth: user submitted information, e.g. your "show bgp sum".

Why? I'd rather trust 10 sightings in the wild than one entry in PeeringDB! :-)

What can you do?

We've created a webapp where you can copy + paste the output from your routers'
show ip bgp sum / show bgp sum / show ipv6 bgp sum. The webapp extracts the ASN
and remote IP for the sessions and store those after your confirmation. 

Go to the following URL and submit your BGP data now!


If you prefer, you can also submit the data in CSV format [2].

What data are we using, exactly?

Only the following tuples of information are used: 

    (remote_ASN, remote_IP)

All other data is purged from the data set: I don't care if you are even
exchanging prefixes or how many, nor does it matter what your own ASN is. The 
_only_ thing that matters is that you confirm that you have a BGP session up 
and running with a certain remote IP and ASN. You can submit such confirmations
by copying + pasting your routers' bgp summaries.

Please submit your BGP summaries from all your IXP facing routers!

So when will I hear back about this?

I will present the findings at the upcoming NANOG meeting in New Orleans [1].
Given that the NANOG meeting is approaching rapidly, I urge you to submit your
data sooner rather than later. :-)

Kind regards,

Job Snijders

[1] - CSV format should be formatted like column 1: ASN, column 2: remote IP,
    separated by a comma. example: "5580,"
[2] - http://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2140