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

Dear all,

As one of the proposers I would like to point out that this proposal is not about changing the default allocation size for IXPs, and as such I personally consider suggestions to change it out of scope for a discussion on this policy. On top of that, I don’t think it’s  substantive opposition to enlarging the lifespan of the IXP pool, which is what this proposal aims to achieve - rather, I consider it an expansion of what is being proposed (do THIS and do THAT, too).

That said, having seen the arguments and numbers, I will personally commit to drafting a policy proposal to change the default IXP location size to something smaller (/25, /26, /27?) once the process on the current proposal has been concluded.

(With apologies to Radu for stealing his thread to reply)

Kind regards

Remco van Mook


> On 12 Aug 2019, at 10:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, at 10:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it
>> is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the
>> opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an
>> important function for the Internet as a whole.
> 
> +1
> We should go on with the current version.
> *IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you can still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the extra space secured.
> 
> --
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190905/aa804d2e/attachment.sig>