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] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 Review Phase (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Fri Aug 9 12:54:52 CEST 2019
Dear all, I think Matthias' work aligns with my impression of the landscape: most IXPs never grow beyond 100 participants. I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs requesting some space, rather than a /24. The main advantage is that the pool of available space for this purpose will last our community longer. Perhaps even as much as twice the number of IXPs can take advantage of this arrangement. Kind regards, Job On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 11:00:43AM +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote: > Hi, > > I have compiled an in-depth analysis of peeringdb data. You can find a > full description of the method, scripts, data and the main results on > github: > > https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/ > > Some interesting takeaways: > > * Roughly 83% of all IXPs would theoretically fit into a /25. This > already includes 100% overprovisioning, i.e., 2xconnected ASes/IXP. At > the same time, 74% of all peering LANs are /24s. Consequently, the > default policy of assigning /24s has created large amounts of unused > space. > > * Already today, more than 10% of all peering LANs are smaller or equal > a /25. Having small peering LANs is not entirely unusual. > > * Large IXPs requiring a /23 or larger are rare (<3%). Thus, lowering > the upper bound for assignments to /23 will not save large amounts of > space. > > Conclusions: > > I back the proposal except for the limitation to a /23. I propose > having a /21 as an upper limit with thorough checks by RIPE. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 03:47 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > Hmm.. why shouldn't defunct IXPs not be taken in consideration > > > > though? > > > > > > Because they will have handed back their address space. > > > > what are you trying to measure? the space utilization of current > > operating exchanges, or the distribution of request sizes? > > > > randy > > > -- > > Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber > Researcher > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) > phone: +49 69 1730902 > mobile: +49 171 3836036 > fax: +49 69 4056 2716 > e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net > web: www.de-cix.net > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert > Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 > Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 Review Phase (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]