Hi Gert,
> > I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible.
> Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so
we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then
re-do review phase and last call.
> If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and
sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal back
to review phase.
> OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good
idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth to
expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy with the
proposal as it stands,
> with a /16, and the constraints that this brings with it (= 256 new small
IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), I would prefer to accept their
assumptions and go forward.
I do think that it is important, however if the EIX WG agrees that 'a /16
ought to be enough for all future IXP's in the region.', I would like to see
that stated on the list here and I'm happy.
My personal (gut) feeling about it, is that a /16 isn't going to last very
long and seeing a policy on the roll that could allow PI on that same last
/8, it might be better to adjust now, rather than being sorry later.
Regards,
Erik Bais
