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 New Policy Proposal (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 ]
Denis Fondras
ripe at liopen.fr
Wed May 29 15:58:16 CEST 2019
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:42:59PM +0300, Alexandr Popov wrote: > IXPs can use Private-Use Networks such as 10.0.0.0/8. > There is no technical need to spend a valuable resource for such purposes. > It has to be unique. On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > /23 is 512 hosts, which is large by IXP standards. The PCH IXP directory > suggests there are about 20 IXPs worldwide which are larger than 256 > connected parties. > And only 3 with more than 512 connected ASN. But can we imagine some ASN have more than 1 IP on the peering LAN ? I agree there is really a small chance an IXP will ask for more the /23. Still I can't see the point of this limitation. Denis
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (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 ]