[address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

* Dominik Nowacki

> Same here, +1 for /25

Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory.

As the NCC's impact analysis states, these currently have no policy that allows for their use, so they'd be left to rot.

Small IXPs can use them just fine, though, so I see no reason to not allow for that.

> /26 is too small

Not at all.

Quoting from Matthias's report:

«71.73% of all IXPs would fit into a /26 including 100% overprovisioning»

> You don’t want IX to have to Re-number

Why not?

While it is somewhat of a hassle, renumbering an IXP is a relatively straightforward operation. I've participated in one such exercise myself (at NIX), and it wasn't difficult.

It can certainly not compare to the challenge a regular network operator would face when renumbering out of a regular ALLOCATED PA block.

We're at the end of the road when it comes for IPv4. If we take care to not assign IXP blocks gratuitously, the pool might actually end up lasting forever.

[1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-June/012909.html

Tore