[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sat Nov 5 09:14:42 CET 2022
* David Farmer > You seem to want to optimize for the smallest of the small IXPs, tiny > IXPs as you put it. How about we optimize for just plain small IXPs? No, what I want is to optimise equally for all sizes of IX-es. It is the current optimisation of (read: overassignment to) small IX-es I would like to see ended. In other words: an IX with X members should get the smallest /Y prefix that can fit X. That should go equally for any value of X. That is: …if X=4, then Y=29. …if X=40, then Y=26. …if X=400, then Y=23. …and so forth. If any IX wants to double in size, it would need to renumber exactly once. This would constitute totally fair and equal treatment for all IX-es regardless of size, the way I see it – and it would be the the exact opposite of «optimising for the smallest of the small IXPs». > If those tiniest IXPs, get 14 usable addresses instead of only 6, > that doesn't seem like it's that much of a waste. I doubt the IXPs, that in the future will be denied any assignment whatsoever due to wasteful assignments causing the premature exhaustion of the IXP pool, will see it that way. > We were giving those tiniest IXPs a /24 or 254 usable addresses until > now. How stingy do we have to be? I think we can and should stop *all* waste at this point. We cannot expand the pool like we did in 2019-05, so to make the IXP pool last all we can do is to stop wasting space on IXPs that don't need it, and that does indeed include not giving /28s to IXPs that only need /29s. Giving out /24s by default was IMHO extremely short-sighted, and I did speak out against doing so in the past. I am not therefore not at all surprised that we find ourselves in this situation. Again. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]