Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Hi all, As I already indicated when this was last presented at the RIPE meeting, I strongly support a proposal to this end. The one thing I'm missing is the criteria for the size of the assignment - when does an IXP get a /24, /23 or a /22? With 'run out fairly' as accepted policy I don't think the timeframes set there are in any way realistic for Internet exchanges. So, clean as the current proposal is, I'd suggest making it a bit messier and adding very explicit criteria. With some first hand experience in setting up Exchanges, I would suggest the following: - a new IXP gets a /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /24 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /23 and has to return the old /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /23 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /22 and has to return the old /23 (Yes, this means renumbering every single time. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, if you run out of a /22 for your peering LAN you're fresh out of luck.) And while we're at it, I would suggest to add to 5.6.4: c. Any address space that is returned by an IXP will be added to the reserve as outlined in 5.6.2. Sorry :) Best, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, Europe remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 25-10-11 11:51, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 22 November 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
Hi, On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:06:05PM +0100, Remco Van Mook wrote:
With some first hand experience in setting up Exchanges, I would suggest the following:
- a new IXP gets a /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /24 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /23 and has to return the old /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /23 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /22 and has to return the old /23
I think this is all logical to people setting up exchanges - but indeed, it might be useful to make this clear to people evaluating such a request, quite likely having never worked at an IXP yet... Andy, you're taking notes? :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 25 Oct 2011, at 19:06, Remco Van Mook wrote:
With some first hand experience in setting up Exchanges, I would suggest the following: - a new IXP gets a /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /24 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /23 and has to return the old /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /23 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /22 and has to return the old /23 (Yes, this means renumbering every single time. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, if you run out of a /22 for your peering LAN you're fresh out of luck.)
This is sane logic, but it feels very much like userland^Wimplementation documentation rathe than policy to me. Agree ? I don't mind it being in the policy though as it sounds very sane.
And while we're at it, I would suggest to add to 5.6.4:
c. Any address space that is returned by an IXP will be added to the reserve as outlined in 5.6.2.
Agreed. Andy
Hi Andy, I agree that being this specific in policy might be overdoing it a bit, but at this point in time I don't want any ambiguity in ipv4 allocation policy and I'm not aware of any other kind of document where the community can put guidance on implementation. Best, Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Davidson [mailto:andy@nosignal.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 09:18 AM To: Remco Van Mook Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) On 25 Oct 2011, at 19:06, Remco Van Mook wrote:
With some first hand experience in setting up Exchanges, I would suggest the following: - a new IXP gets a /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /24 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /23 and has to return the old /24 - an existing IXP that runs out of its /23 (whether from this /16 or another range) gets a /22 and has to return the old /23 (Yes, this means renumbering every single time. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, if you run out of a /22 for your peering LAN you're fresh out of luck.)
This is sane logic, but it feels very much like userland^Wimplementation documentation rathe than policy to me. Agree ? I don't mind it being in the policy though as it sounds very sane.
And while we're at it, I would suggest to add to 5.6.4:
c. Any address space that is returned by an IXP will be added to the reserve as outlined in 5.6.2.
Agreed. Andy This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
participants (3)
-
Andy Davidson -
Gert Doering -
Remco Van Mook