<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Some considerations about the pros and cons of using RFC1918 addresses (as well as other methods) </div><div class="">were presented here:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380" class="">https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">With these in mind, I don't think RFC1918 addresses are a clean, scalable solution which works, something</div><div class="">which I believe the authors of the original policy had in mind.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class="">Aris</div><div class=""><div><br class=""></div><div>PS: Perhaps pushing vendors for RFC5549 support is a more long term solution? </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 29 May 2019, at 16:12, Alexandr Popov <<a href="mailto:alexp@ma.spb.ru" class="">alexp@ma.spb.ru</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">The small technical difficulties of using private networks by IXPs are easily solved.<br class="">Ordinary companies that will lack the IPv4 will have much greater difficulties.<br class="">Right, the IPs for IXPs should be unique.<br class="">Perhaps it makes sense to create a policy of allocation Private-Use IPs for IXPs?<br class="">If IXPs will follow that policy, they will have unique private IPs.<br class=""><br class="">29.05.2019, 16:58, "Denis Fondras" <<a href="mailto:ripe@liopen.fr" class="">ripe@liopen.fr</a>>:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:42:59PM +0300, Alexandr Popov wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> IXPs can use Private-Use Networks such as 10.0.0.0/8.<br class=""> There is no technical need to spend a valuable resource for such purposes.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">It has to be unique.<br class=""><br class="">On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> /23 is 512 hosts, which is large by IXP standards. The PCH IXP directory<br class=""> suggests there are about 20 IXPs worldwide which are larger than 256<br class=""> connected parties.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">And only 3 with more than 512 connected ASN. But can we imagine some ASN have<br class="">more than 1 IP on the peering LAN ?<br class=""><br class="">I agree there is really a small chance an IXP will ask for more the /23. Still I<br class="">can't see the point of this limitation.<br class=""><br class="">Denis<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>