[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:00 AM Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> * David Farmer
>
> > 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.
>
> The policy states that you get what you need to have a 50% utilisation
> one year from assignment.
>
> Thus, in order to get an initial /28 assignment and skip over a default
> /29, the IX would need to have a realistic plan to have eight members
> within a year of the founding of the IX (or possibly just six, if the
> NCC considers the network and broadcast addresses as «utilised»).
>
> That is a *very* low bar to clear.
>
> But if IX cannot clear that low bar, I'd say they should not start out
> with a /28 (or larger) either.
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#61


 I think the need for a creative writing exercise should be avoided by
starting with a /28 as the default, then being very skeptical of optimistic
growth projections of unproven IXPs.

> Basically, a /29 is probably too small to be practical.
> >
>
> Well, according to Mathias's report, 25% of all IX-es would manage just
> fine with a /29…
>
> By the way, last I checked there were a number of unassigned fragments
> smaller than /24 rotting away in the NCC's inventory, due to there
> being no policy that allowed for their assignment. IX-es are one of the
> very few places where those can be used, so they could be all added to
> the reserved IXP pool and actually do some good there.
>
> Tore
>

As I see it if an IXP has fewer than three(3) participants it really isn't
an IXP. there seem to be quite a few IXPs with less than three(3)
participants as required by policy. How is this requirement currently
implemented? I would hope RIPE NCC requires at least a letter of intent
from three(3) or more participants.

So, if an IXP starts with three(3) participants, per policy, with a /29, it
is already at 50% full, leaving 3 addresses for growth, and that doesn't
include any infrastructure IP addresses, like a route server(s), etc...

Therefore, starting at a /28 makes more sense to me. Forcing most IXPs to
renumber almost right out of the gate doesn't make much sense to me.
Furthermore, starting with a /28 will provide up to 16 times as many IXPs.
Obviously, we won't get to that many more IXPs, but 4 or 5 times as many
IXPs seems realistic to me. Many IXPs will succeed and grow, consuming more
of the reserved pool, but that is a good thing.

Finally, maybe there should be a maximum allocation size of /24. An IXP
that is successful enough to need more than a /24 probably can afford to go
to the marketplace for the additional IPv4 address space it needs. This
reserved pool should be there to facilitate new IXPs and get them to a
critical mass of suitability. Not to facilitate the growth of the largest
IXPs. While the further growth of IXPs is important, once they get to a
critical mass, they can probably fend for themselves in the marketplace
without relying on a reserved pool.

Thanks.


-- 
===============================================
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/20221103/96614897/attachment.html>