[address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Fri Aug 9 15:00:32 CEST 2019
* Sascha Luck [ml] > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: >> Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory. > > I can't see how an IXP with 6 members (including RC/RS) would even be viable unless it's some hobby effort, so I wouldn't go overboard. Repeating myself again, just here in my small home country of Norway, there are (at least) four examples of such IXPs: BIX, SIX, TIX and TRDIX. https://www.nix.no/who-is-connected/ (scroll down to the bottom table). They have been around for a long time, so I'd assume they are «viable». They are run by the same organisation who runs NIX, so it's not «some hobby effort». Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]