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 ]
Arash Naderpour
arash_mpc at parsun.com
Fri Oct 25 08:08:06 CEST 2019
Hi, Do we know how many /29 we have available in the IXP reserved pool? if there are only few ones, it doesn't make scene to me set the default to /29 as it would be a good practice for just few allocations. Can someone from RIPE NCC provide us with an statistic on number of different prefixes in the IXP pool? Regards, Arash >I believe the logical thing to do is to put the default at the /29 as well. Having the default equal to the minimum is the most conservative and thus the best suited for making the IXP pool last "forever". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20191025/89f16d96/attachment.html>
- 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 ]