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

Hi Kai,

On 29/05/19 16:33, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> The IXPs I've experienced explicitely prohibit announcment (i. e. routing) of their space nor announce it theirselves; so why spend another whole /15 as private address space? Obviously, there is no need for global routabillity, where is the need for global uniqueness and why can't this be solved differently (everyone has to cope with IPv4 scarceness, why can't IXPs)? As the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses depletes, new IXPs will need to adopt new strategies, just like their customers.

There are several downsides of using the same address space in multiple
IXPs:

- IXP participants will not be able to connect the same router to
multiple IXPs. This is something that is done quite a lot, especially by
smaller networks that connect via remote peering.

- It becomes impossible to identify in traceroutes which IXP was
crossed. This makes troubleshooting a lot more complicated.

- The consequences of address space leaks are more severe. When a
participant of a smaller IXP leaks the peering LAN prefix to the routing
table this will cause instability at all IXPs that use a prefix that
covers the same block.

Kind regards,
Martin