[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 May 31 09:08:30 CEST 2019
* Marco Schmidt > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs" is now available for discussion. I am positive to this policy proposal. A suggestion, though: use the /16 set aside in «5.2 Unforeseen circumstances» for expanding the IXP pool. The unforeseen circumstances reservation is 185.0.0.0/16 while the IXP pool is 185.1.0.0/16. They combine nicely into 185.0.0.0/15. This might be helpful for operators that might want to exempt known IXP ranges from uRPF filtering, for example. Also, I am wondering about the thinking behind giving out /24s by default when the minimum assignment size is reduced /27. Why not right-size the assignment all the way down to the minimum assignment size, thus maximising the amount of future entrants the pool can support? There's nothing special about the /24 boundary for the IXP use case, to the best of my knowledge. 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 ]