Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 May 2012.
I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough? 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's ) I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi, On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 May 2012.
I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . .
In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8.
If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough?
65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's )
I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible.
Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then re-do review phase and last call. If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal back to review phase. OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth to expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy with the proposal as it stands, with a /16, and the constraints that this brings with it (= 256 new small IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), I would prefer to accept their assumptions and go forward. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, I fully aggree with your arguments this time. Best, Geza On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 May 2012.
I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . .
In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8.
If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough?
65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve
a /16 (256 /24's )
I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible.
Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then re-do review phase and last call.
If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal back to review phase.
OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth to expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy with the proposal as it stands, with a /16, and the constraints that this brings with it (= 256 new small IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), I would prefer to accept their assumptions and go forward.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert,
I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible.
Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then re-do review phase and last call.
If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal back to review phase.
OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth to expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy with the proposal as it stands, with a /16, and the constraints that this brings with it (= 256 new small IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), I would prefer to accept their assumptions and go forward.
I do think that it is important, however if the EIX WG agrees that 'a /16 ought to be enough for all future IXP's in the region.', I would like to see that stated on the list here and I'm happy. My personal (gut) feeling about it, is that a /16 isn't going to last very long and seeing a policy on the roll that could allow PI on that same last /8, it might be better to adjust now, rather than being sorry later. Regards, Erik Bais
hi! On 05/08/2012 11:32 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal back to review phase.
hmm - just to make sure: i formally voice strong and sustained opposition towards 2011-05. regards, Chris
On 8 May 2012, at 10:23, Erik Bais wrote:
In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8.
If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough?
65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's )
I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible.
This was discussed at the eix-wg and address-policy in Vienna. There are 133 known IXPs in Europe (according to Euro-IX) at the moment, and whilst we would all love to see more and more regional peering, the consideration was that reserving addressing room for another ~200 IXPs (in the European region) ... before IPv6 is prevalent ... is acceptable. I trust this answers your concern ? In summary this is a valid question, but it was considered at the time the proposal was drafted. And, if we run out of space for new IXPs before v6 prevalence, then whither the very internet, my colleagues ? Andy Davidson (EIX-WG Co-chair, 2011-05 author, IXP operator)
This was discussed at the eix-wg and address-policy in Vienna. There are 133 known IXPs in Europe (according to Euro-IX) at the moment, and whilst we would all love to see more and more regional peering, the consideration was
Hi Andy, that
reserving addressing room for another ~200 IXPs (in the European region) ... before IPv6 is prevalent ... is acceptable.
I trust this answers your concern ? In summary this is a valid question, but it was considered at the time the proposal was drafted.
Yes it does.
And, if we run out of space for new IXPs before v6 prevalence, then whither the very internet, my colleagues ?
:-) Thanks for the answer. Regards, Erik Bais
participants (6)
-
Andy Davidson -
chrish＠consol.net -
Erik Bais -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Turchanyi Geza