[address-policy-wg] 2023-01 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:24 AM Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>
> Now, I totally understand the chicken and egg problem here: as long as
> IXPs get IPv4 addresses there will be no need to exchange IPv4 routing
> information over IPv6. But until that has been properly tested we continue
> to give them IPv4 space. But let’s not put in artificial restrictions to
> make them test it. If the real reason is that we don’t have enough IPv4
> space to give to IXPs in the future, then let’s make *that* clear.
>
> Like: “From <insert-cutoff-date-here> IXPs will no longer be able to grow
> their IPv4 assignment beyond <insert-prefix-size-here>. IXPs that
> anticipate needing to grow larger than this are strongly encouraged to
> start testing with exchanging IPv4 routing information over IPv6”.
>
> The cutoff date may be a little arbitrary (I’m sure the NCC can give
> reasonable predictions to base it on) but at least it matches with reality
> :)
>

I generally support the idea above.

However, reviewing this and the previous thread leading up to this policy
proposal, I haven't seen any projected runout dates for the current IXP
pool.

Therefore, can we get projected runout dates based on the current and
proposed minimum IXP allocation sizes?

We can use that to inform the selection of a date in the above suggestion,
presumably picking a date sometime short of the projected runout.

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/20230208/86d33526/attachment.html>