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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Tue Oct 15 16:26:51 CEST 2019
* Marco Schmidt > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" > is now available for discussion. > > This proposal aims to change the default IXP assignment size from a /24 > to a needs-based model, with a /27 as a minimum. While I do support the proposal's aim of reducing the default assignment size, I would suggest that we make the default a /29 instead of a /27: - The reserved IXP pool currently contains prefixes sized /29 and /28. These can not be delegated under neither the current nor the proposed policy. However, small IXPs could make use of these just fine. I see why reason why we should «lock them up and throw away the key». - Looking at figure 2 at https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/ it would appear that ~43% of all IXPs would fit into a /28 including 100% overprovisioning (or into a /29 with no overprovisioning). This suggests that /29s and /28s would be useful and sufficient to a significant number of IXPs. - Lowering the default assignment size to a /29 does obviously not mean that IXPs that do require a /27 or larger should not receive it. They simply have to justify it, exactly the same as an IXP requesting a /{26..22} would have to under the proposed policy. This is not a unreasonable thing to ask, in my opinion - IPv4 is a very scarce resource, after all. - This might require growing IXPs to renumber from /29->/28->/27, which they would not have to do under the currently proposed policy. However, I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask. The smaller the IXP is, the easier it is to coordinate a renumbering process. Renumbering is in any case a process they will to go through as they grow out of the /27 currently proposed as the new default assignment size. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]