* Matthias Wichtlhuber
Moreover, I have updated the analysis to include /29s (which I previously cut off). Only ~25% of all IXPs would fit into such a small peering LAN. Setting the default to /29 will likely cripple the growth of IXes. There is also no benefit in retaining these resources if they are needed.
Thank you for updating! It is always nice to have real data to look at. I think I disagree with your use of «only». 25% isn't «only» in my opinion, that's a quite considerable share of the total. If I read your report correctly, the group of IX-es that will manage comfortably with a /29 is in fact the largest group of them all! (Here I do say manage "comfortably" since your report state that it assumes 100% oversubscription, which I take to mean that the IX-es in each bracket can *at least* double their member count without running out of addresses.) Also I don't understand your «crippling the growth» concern. The 75% if IX-es that need something bigger then a /29, they would of course get something bigger – just like they do today, if they need something bigger than a /24. Has today's policy, where /24 is the default, «crippled» any IX from growing past 254 connected members? If not, how exactly would a default /29 policy «cripple» an IX from growing past 6 members, or a default /28 «cripple» it from growing past 14 members for that matter? Or to put it another way: if we change the default to /25 or /26 as you propose, wouldn't that change – in the exact same way as for /29 – «cripple the growth» of those IX-es past 126 or 62 connected members? If so, how come that is OK, if it isn't OK for /29? Tore