[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 ]
Aris Lambrianidis
aris.lambrianidis at ams-ix.net
Wed May 29 16:42:07 CEST 2019
Hello, Some considerations about the pros and cons of using RFC1918 addresses (as well as other methods) were presented here: https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380 <https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380> With these in mind, I don't think RFC1918 addresses are a clean, scalable solution which works, something which I believe the authors of the original policy had in mind. Kind regards, Aris PS: Perhaps pushing vendors for RFC5549 support is a more long term solution? > On 29 May 2019, at 16:12, Alexandr Popov <alexp at ma.spb.ru> wrote: > > The small technical difficulties of using private networks by IXPs are easily solved. > Ordinary companies that will lack the IPv4 will have much greater difficulties. > Right, the IPs for IXPs should be unique. > Perhaps it makes sense to create a policy of allocation Private-Use IPs for IXPs? > If IXPs will follow that policy, they will have unique private IPs. > > 29.05.2019, 16:58, "Denis Fondras" <ripe at liopen.fr>: >> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:42:59PM +0300, Alexandr Popov wrote: >>> IXPs can use Private-Use Networks such as 10.0.0.0/8. >>> There is no technical need to spend a valuable resource for such purposes. >> >> It has to be unique. >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> /23 is 512 hosts, which is large by IXP standards. The PCH IXP directory >>> suggests there are about 20 IXPs worldwide which are larger than 256 >>> connected parties. >> >> And only 3 with more than 512 connected ASN. But can we imagine some ASN have >> more than 1 IP on the peering LAN ? >> >> I agree there is really a small chance an IXP will ask for more the /23. Still I >> can't see the point of this limitation. >> >> Denis > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190529/c3cba32f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190529/c3cba32f/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]