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

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
>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.

I can't see how an IXP with 6 members (including RC/RS) would even 
be viable unless it's some hobby effort, so I wouldn't go overboard. 

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

One possibility would be to assign them for PNIs - which is an
IXP with two members, at the end of the day. ;p

>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.

Why would this be desirable? Surely there is a functional limit
on the numbers of viable IXPs in the service region? Besides, I
still have some hope in RFC5549 eventually obsoleting IPv4
peering altogether...
Meanwhile I could live with an either /25 or /26 IXP default
assignment.

rgds,
Sascha Luck