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] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Fri Oct 25 12:54:32 CEST 2019
Dear colleagues, On 22/10/2019, 17:24, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Marco Schmidt wrote on 15/10/2019 13:43: > > This proposal aims to change the default IXP assignment size from a /24 > > to a needs-based model, with a /27 as a minimum. > This proposal doesn't seem well-thought-out. [...] I strongly oppose the 2019-07 policy proposal for the reasons expressed by Nick Hilliard. I think an IXP operator should be able to request a longer prefix than a /24 in the IXP Assignment policy but the default assignment size should not change from a /24. IXPs need to operate on the principle of least surprise, especially as the experience and the expertise of networks connecting continues to expand beyond the traditional boundaries. Best wishes, Andy Davidson
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]