[address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Thu Nov 14 14:56:14 CET 2019
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote on 13/11/2019 13:41: > A little late, but here's my point of view: > - /27 is borderline for a default. Hopefully the 50% use within 2 > years should alleviate this (even if I find it not enough). > - Anything smaller than a /27 is close to useless. - Renumbering is > painful and should be avoided as much as possible. > - IXP growth may be very variable in time. You may struggle for1-2 > years, then add several dozens members the next year. You may easy > get in a situation when renumbering falls in a period of rapid > growth, which only makes things worse. The purpose of a policy should be to fix a specific problem. As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe what problem you want to see fixed here? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]