PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.
That’s user-submitted data. The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is independently verified by our staff. So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by someone going and laying eyes on it.
PeeringDB www.peeringdb.com is the defacto source of truth.
That’s user-submitted data. The PCH directory is twenty years old, and is independently verified by our staff. So what’s there isn’t always up-to-date, but we do differentiate between rumor and something that’s been verified by someone going and laying eyes on it.
It is ever-so-slightly better than user-submitted data. Specifically, if an IX or a colo tells us "this person says they are a [Customer|Member|whatever] and they are not", we will remove that row from the DB.
Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. Just the opposite.
Then again, PeeringDB never claimed to be anything but user-submitted data. Just the opposite.
Exactly, not a criticism; PeeringDB’s focus is on peers, not on IXPs. The IXP Directory’s focus is on IXPs, not peers. Different needs, different data collected, etc.
Taking just Seattle IX (since I have a personal interest there :), it says "177" under “participants"
Interesting. We pull automatically from the standard URL, https://www.seattleix.net/participants/table but have to try to uniq it to not double-count organizations that are peering under multiple ASNs, who are peering on multiple subnets, etc. Because we’re doing that 400 times per day, it’s all automated with rulesets and a whole lot of exceptions (knowing that AS 701, 702, 703 are the same organization, etc.).
The SIX is reporting 194 unique ASNs and 195 unique organization names. Presumably we have some rules that are detecting that AS42 and AS3856, for instance, are the same organization and consolidating those. I’ll have our IXPdir maintenance staff take a look at where the differences lie, and whether any of those rules need to be updated.
For instance, if I were stupid enough to peer with as3856 and not with as42 (because not peering with either of those is idiotic :), would I get the same data as peering with both?
It is absolutely true that if I peer with as702, I do _not_ get the same prefixes as peering with as701. Just because one is a downstream of the other does not mean they are separate (from BGP's PoV).
There are a lot of these things that seem self-evident to a human in specific cases, but when you write a rule to implement the apparently-self-evident-specific-case, it winds up creating something unanticipated elsewhere. The more you try to have common code that gets applied uniformly across multiple tools, the more you wind up with unexpected results. So, there are times when people want to know that AS42 and AS3856 are both PCH, and there are times when they want to know that they’re different ASes with different routing policies.
I’ll report back when I know whether or how we’re over-uniquing that number. In all likelihood, we’re applying a ruleset that’s used in multiple tools, and someone thought it made sense to aggregate more in a different tool. But that’s just speculation, and I’ll know more when our staff who maintain that have finished looking through that section of code and get back to me.
I’ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google
Maps) - just never got around to putting it online. Honestly I wasn’t
sure if there was an interest in it
I?ve actually been working on a site like that for a while (with Google
Maps) - just never got around to putting it online. Honestly I wasn?t
sure if there was an interest in it
chop-chop!
Paul
Looking for a good listing of US/Canada peering exchange, similar to
Torx in Toronto.. Google map listing would be nice J
