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] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Nov 1 18:51:16 CET 2022
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 10:31 AM Wolfgang Tremmel < wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net> wrote: > No. But renumbering an IX is *pain*. A lot of pain. You want to avoid that > if possible. > A /26 allows (given that the IX uses about 2-4 IPs itself) about 60 > customers. > > So according to the numbers, for 70% of the IXes this will never fill up, > so no need for renumbering. > Depending on how quickly it filled up, you then go either for a /25 or a > /24. > > To sum up: > - if you start with a /26 ==> 30% has to renumber > - if you start with a /29 ==> 75% has to renumber ---> more pain! > I think maybe we want something in between; what do /27 and /28 look like? /29 could be forcing too much pain into the system, and /26 probably isn't enough pain in the system. Furthermore, /29 seems a little too small for a reasonable growth cycle before having to renumber. 50% fill of a /29 would be 3 of 6 usable addresses. Meaning many IXes could almost immediately qualify for a larger subnet, and they would have very much time to implement a renumbering process. Whereas with a /28, 50% fill would be 7 of 14 usable addresses. That seems like it would allow for reasonable growth before having to renumber and some runway to actually accomplish the renumbering process. Basically, a /29 is probably too small to be practical. Thanks > > Am 1. Nov 2022 um 15:48 schrieb Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>: > > > > If not, how exactly would a default > > /29 policy «cripple» an IX from growing past 6 members, or a default > > /28 «cripple» it from growing past 14 members for that matter? > > -- > Wolfgang Tremmel > > Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net > Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: > AG Cologne, HRB 51135 > DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | > Germany | www.de-cix.net > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20221101/93aedd32/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]