[address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Hi,

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:08:30AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 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.

We briefly touched this in the WG session last Wednesday.  Doing it 
this way removes the discussion about "larger address block for routing 
reasons" *if* the IXP in question decides that they do want to announce 
their prefix.

So, as written today, "if you don't know", you get a /24 which could
be routed later.  "If you are sure you're small and do not want this
announced", you can ask for a /27.../25.

Not advocating anything, just relaying what was the explanation given.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190531/ba21aa4b/attachment.sig>