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

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gert Doering
> 
> > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this
> > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of
> > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for
> > IXPs).
> 
> The IA states that the NCC can set aside the required /16 already at the point in time when this proposal enters Last Call.
> 
> As I understand it, this means we have enough time to cut another version of this proposal if we want to.

You *could* play the PDP this way, by letting it pass review phase (where
it is now), wait until the NCC sets aside the /16, and then call "foul!"
in last call, to have it bounce back to the review phase...

Between review and last call, no changes can be made - a new version
with changed text (more than typos) would have to go through a new IA
and a new review phase - which normally happens if there is sufficient
opposition in review phase that a new version is warranted.


> In particular, I am disappointed that the authors did not implement (or even comment on) my discussion phase suggestion[1] to use the 5.2 Unforeseen Circumstances pool for the IXP pool expansion. It is perfectly sized at /16, and it is adjacent to the current IXP pool, which means the resulting new IXP pool would have been an *actual* /15.
> 
> As I understand the current proposal and the NCC's impact analysis, implementation of this proposal would necessarily mean that the resulting IXP pool would be at best two disjoint /16s, at worst one /16 plus a bunch of smaller fragments scattered all over the address space. That'd be a shame, in my opinion.

Mmmh.  Marco, can you comment on whether this is an implementation thing
at the NCC, or whether you'd need a formal statement in the policy text
to make this happen?

(While it's all just numbers, some numbers look more familiar than others,
so having all IXP space "in one block" is a bit easier on "oh, these 
numbers look IXPish" - so I can see that it would be nice)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190809/4289e8f9/attachment.sig>