Sorry, multi *protocol* BGP, not multi hop ;) -- Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber Senior Researcher ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) phone: +49 69 1730902 141 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: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne ------------------------------ DE-CIX 25th anniversary: Without you the Internet would not be the same! Join us on the journey at https://withoutyou.de-cix.net ________________________________________ Von: Matthias Wichtlhuber Gesendet: Montag, 31. Oktober 2022 09:31:55 An: Kurt Kayser; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: Sander Steffann; Arnold Nipper; Gert Doering Betreff: AW: [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 04:23:20PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: To add to this discussion: I took this to the Connect WG, and the initial feedback I got from there is that they have no problem with reevaluating this every 8 or so years (what seems to be the current rate of use of the IXP pool), and that they would be perfectly happy with not doing anything right now and reevaluating this in 2027 or so. This will be taken to the Connect WG mailing list, so let's keep an eye on that to see whether action is necessary at all.
As per my analysis, there has been a ~40% increase in IXPs world-wide over the last three years (see my initial mail). Given that number, I don't think we should wait and continue wasting space with too large assignments until 2027.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 20:59:20PM +0200, Gert Döring wrote: Now, getting that /15 might be a bit complicated... maybe we really need to go for "ipv4 over ipv6 transport", then, like the cloudfolks already do...
Sure, we should go for multihop hop BGP in the future. But (correct me if I'm wrong) this is probably a question for the Euro-IX folks. This will require a major testing effort from the IXP community with all kinds of vendors and route server implementations and we need to develop best practices for that; thus, it makes sense to stretch the existing pool as long as possible. Please note this proposal also affects DE-CIX, because most of our IXPs are not exactly the size of Frankfurt. IMHO, the default assignment should be something like /25. Regards, Matthias -- Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber Senior Researcher ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) phone: +49 69 1730902 141 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: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne ------------------------------ DE-CIX 25th anniversary: Without you the Internet would not be the same! Join us on the journey at https://withoutyou.de-cix.net ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von Kurt Kayser <Kurt.Kayser@online.de> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Oktober 2022 00:49:25 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: Sander Steffann; Arnold Nipper; Gert Doering Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments Arnold, yes we are all getting older..
I would have expected that you have to add serious content. Looks like you are getting old, too.
Arnold Btw.: It's DE-CIX, not DECIX, DEC-IX or any other variation :)
DE-CIX - easy to remember, like DE-PEER oder DE-ICE :-) .kurt PS: yes, just having fun :-) -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg