Hi, On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 09:08:30AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
Also, I am wondering about the thinking behind giving out /24s by default when the minimum assignment size is reduced /27. Why not right-size the assignment all the way down to the minimum assignment size, thus maximising the amount of future entrants the pool can support? There's nothing special about the /24 boundary for the IXP use case, to the best of my knowledge.
We briefly touched this in the WG session last Wednesday. Doing it this way removes the discussion about "larger address block for routing reasons" *if* the IXP in question decides that they do want to announce their prefix. So, as written today, "if you don't know", you get a /24 which could be routed later. "If you are sure you're small and do not want this announced", you can ask for a /27.../25. Not advocating anything, just relaying what was the explanation given. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279