[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] Staff participation in the IP market
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 15:15:46 CEST 2019
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote: > * 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. > > Well, I see that I could have participated at an earlier point in time and muttered agreement for this. Sorry about that, because I do agree. But as I understand it, there is not enough support for that? However, in the proposal, we do have the following paragraph, in which /29 could be substituted for /27, as a sort of compromise? 1. New IXPs will be assigned a /24 by default. Once they require a larger assignment, they must return their current one (or existing PI used as an IXP peering LAN) and receive a replacement up to maximum of a /22. After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. On request or once there are no more assignments of /24 (or larger) available, assignments can be made down to /27. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190809/b79c65f1/attachment.html>
- 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] Staff participation in the IP market
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]