Hi, I have compiled an in-depth analysis of peeringdb data. You can find a full description of the method, scripts, data and the main results on github: https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/ Some interesting takeaways: * Roughly 83% of all IXPs would theoretically fit into a /25. This already includes 100% overprovisioning, i.e., 2xconnected ASes/IXP. At the same time, 74% of all peering LANs are /24s. Consequently, the default policy of assigning /24s has created large amounts of unused space. * Already today, more than 10% of all peering LANs are smaller or equal a /25. Having small peering LANs is not entirely unusual. * Large IXPs requiring a /23 or larger are rare (<3%). Thus, lowering the upper bound for assignments to /23 will not save large amounts of space. Conclusions: I back the proposal except for the limitation to a /23. I propose having a /21 as an upper limit with thorough checks by RIPE. Regards, Matthias On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 03:47 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
Hmm.. why shouldn't defunct IXPs not be taken in consideration though?
Because they will have handed back their address space.
what are you trying to measure? the space utilization of current operating exchanges, or the distribution of request sizes?
randy
-- Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber Researcher ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) phone: +49 69 1730902 mobile: +49 171 3836036 fax: +49 69 4056 2716 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web: www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne