On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:00 AM Tore Anderson <
tore@fud.no> wrote:
* David Farmer
> I think maybe we want something in between; what do /27 and /28 look
> like?
>
> /29 could be forcing too much pain into the system, and /26
> probably isn't enough pain in the system.
>
> Furthermore, /29 seems a little too small for a reasonable growth
> cycle before having to renumber. 50% fill of a /29 would be 3 of 6
> usable addresses. Meaning many IXes could almost immediately qualify
> for a larger subnet, and they would have very much time to implement
> a renumbering process.
The policy states that you get what you need to have a 50% utilisation
one year from assignment.
Thus, in order to get an initial /28 assignment and skip over a default
/29, the IX would need to have a realistic plan to have eight members
within a year of the founding of the IX (or possibly just six, if the
NCC considers the network and broadcast addresses as «utilised»).
That is a *very* low bar to clear.
But if IX cannot clear that low bar, I'd say they should not start out
with a /28 (or larger) either.
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#61
I think the need for a creative writing exercise should be avoided by starting with a /28 as the default, then being very skeptical of optimistic growth projections of unproven IXPs.
> Basically, a /29 is probably too small to be practical.
>
Well, according to Mathias's report, 25% of all IX-es would manage just
fine with a /29…
By the way, last I checked there were a number of unassigned fragments
smaller than /24 rotting away in the NCC's inventory, due to there
being no policy that allowed for their assignment. IX-es are one of the
very few places where those can be used, so they could be all added to
the reserved IXP pool and actually do some good there.
Tore
As I see it if an IXP has fewer than three(3) participants it really isn't an IXP. there seem to be quite a few IXPs with less than three(3) participants as required by policy. How is this requirement currently implemented? I would hope RIPE NCC requires at least a letter of intent from three(3) or more participants.
So, if an IXP starts with three(3) participants, per policy, with a /29, it is already at 50% full, leaving 3 addresses for growth, and that doesn't include any infrastructure IP addresses, like a route server(s), etc...
Therefore, starting at a /28 makes more sense to me. Forcing most IXPs to renumber almost right out of the gate doesn't make much sense to me. Furthermore, starting with a /28 will provide up to 16 times as many IXPs. Obviously, we won't get to that many more IXPs, but 4 or 5 times as many IXPs seems realistic to me. Many IXPs will succeed and grow, consuming more of the reserved pool, but that is a good thing.
Finally, maybe there should be a maximum allocation size of /24. An IXP that is successful enough to need more than a /24 probably can afford to go to the marketplace for the additional IPv4 address space it needs. This reserved pool should be there to facilitate new IXPs and get them to a critical mass of suitability. Not to facilitate the growth of the largest IXPs. While the further growth of IXPs is important, once they get to a critical mass, they can probably fend for themselves in the marketplace without relying on a reserved pool.
Thanks.
--
===============================================
David Farmer
Email:farmer@umn.eduNetworking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================