[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 ]
Denis Fondras - Liopen
ripe at liopen.fr
Mon Nov 7 17:18:29 CET 2022
Le Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 04:56:14PM +0100, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit : > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022, at 13:00, Tore Anderson wrote: > > Actually, I do have some real-life experience here as I/AS39029 was > > part of the NIX renumbering process back in 2017. The whole operation > > was rather straight-forward and went very smoothly. NIX staff simply > > informed all members of their new IPs by e-mail and told to migrate > > within a certain date (different dates for NIX1 and NIX2). > > Well, this seems to be the customer-side experience, not the IXP-side. > Also, what I can see is that responsiveness of NOCs and peering teams of members is only getting worse with time. > At France-IX, just changing a netmask (from /23 to /22) - because we have the biggest 3 out of 5 IXPs numbered from PA space - took just under 2 years to complete (23 months to be precise). More than 80% did the change in less than 3 months, but after 12 months we still had a few members that didn't change their config. > OK, things end up in a slightly more violent manner with renumbering, but you sill end up with "zombie members", not all of them being small players. > > /29 is way too small. It's 6 members, and that supposes that you don't have route-servers or any other internal stuff on the peering LAN. Getting from /29 to /25 that's 4 renumberings, and that may well happen within 2 years. You end up being labelled as "unstable" (read "junk" or "toy" IXP). 3 renumberings to get to /26. > > > NIX is (and was) a mid-sized IX, currently around 60 participants. > > Based on that experience I have honestly a very hard time believing > > that renumbering a small IX is «much more difficult [than renumbering > > a] data centre or an access provider». > > Convincing different distinct parties to do something within a specific timeframe is always difficult. Especially when you have to deal with big companies. > Pushing things too hard will only get you losing members..... > I do agree that /26 is a decent minimum, and /27 is the strictest acceptable minimum (if there really isn't anything bigger left). > ... or getting rid of v4 entirely, which seems to be on nobody's agenda ... > Thank you very much for your message Radu-Adrian, I was about to send something along the same line :) -- Denis Fondras / Liopen / AuvernIX Mob: +33.761.029.186
- 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 ]