This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Tue May 8 11:50:23 CEST 2012
Hi Gert, I fully aggree with your arguments this time. Best, Geza On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 May 2012. > > > > I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . > > > > In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping > up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. > > > > If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of > the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 > from the final /8 enough? > > > > 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve > a /16 (256 /24's ) > > > > I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. > > Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so > we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then > re-do review phase and last call. > > If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and > sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal > back to review phase. > > OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good > idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth > to expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy > with the proposal as it stands, with a /16, and the constraints that this > brings with it (= 256 new small IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), > I would prefer to accept their assumptions and go forward. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120508/33b2fea8/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]