Dear all, As one of the proposers I would like to point out that this proposal is not about changing the default allocation size for IXPs, and as such I personally consider suggestions to change it out of scope for a discussion on this policy. On top of that, I don’t think it’s substantive opposition to enlarging the lifespan of the IXP pool, which is what this proposal aims to achieve - rather, I consider it an expansion of what is being proposed (do THIS and do THAT, too). That said, having seen the arguments and numbers, I will personally commit to drafting a policy proposal to change the default IXP location size to something smaller (/25, /26, /27?) once the process on the current proposal has been concluded. (With apologies to Radu for stealing his thread to reply) Kind regards Remco van Mook
On 12 Aug 2019, at 10:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, at 10:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an important function for the Internet as a whole.
+1 We should go on with the current version. *IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you can still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the extra space secured.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN