[address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)

On 25/10/2011 10:51, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation
> and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now
> available for discussion.
>
I hate to be a killjoy here, but doesn't the average IXP use less than a 
/22?

Part of the rational says: "Much of the work that goes into creating 
Internet Exchange Points today is done in regions of the world where 
there is no Internet Exchange Point yet. Opening an IXP helps to develop 
the Internet and Internet community in that region, so the work really 
is 'good of the Internet'. Starving these regions of an opportunity to 
build a simple open Internet Exchange Point would be severely damaging 
to Internet users in regions under-served by IXPs."

But a brand new IXP will be able to get a /22 under the existing rules. 
Surely that's enough?

I have a general dislike of "special cases" especially where they don't 
seem to be necessary. And this seems to be unnecessary.

Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111027/8faa1fb8/attachment.html>