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

Hi,

> On 31. May 2019, at 09:08, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> 
> Also, I am wondering about the thinking behind giving out /24s by default when the minimum assignment size is reduced /27. Why not right-size the assignment all the way down to the minimum assignment size, thus maximising the amount of future entrants the pool can support? There's nothing special about the /24 boundary for the IXP use case, to the best of my knowledge.

when opening a new exchange there are no customers connected yet, all you have is a business plan. So everything is kind of speculative and you can easily adjust your plan that you need a /24 - so why add additional workload to the NCC to review  business plans? 

An honest IXP operator can request something smaller if he knows that the exchange will not grow beyond a small number of customers within the first 5 years or so.

best regards
Wolfgang

-- 
Wolfgang Tremmel                     

Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net
Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135
DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190531/ecf09cd5/attachment.p7s>