Hello, Some considerations about the pros and cons of using RFC1918 addresses (as well as other methods) were presented here:
https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380 <https://youtu.be/uJOtfiHDCMw?t=380> With these in mind, I don't think RFC1918 addresses are a clean, scalable solution which works, something which I believe the authors of the original policy had in mind. Kind regards, Aris PS: Perhaps pushing vendors for RFC5549 support is a more long term solution? > On 29 May 2019, at 16:12, Alexandr Popov <[email protected]> wrote: > > The small technical difficulties of using private networks by IXPs are easily > solved. > Ordinary companies that will lack the IPv4 will have much greater > difficulties. > Right, the IPs for IXPs should be unique. > Perhaps it makes sense to create a policy of allocation Private-Use IPs for > IXPs? > If IXPs will follow that policy, they will have unique private IPs. > > 29.05.2019, 16:58, "Denis Fondras" <[email protected]>: >> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:42:59PM +0300, Alexandr Popov wrote: >>> IXPs can use Private-Use Networks such as 10.0.0.0/8. >>> There is no technical need to spend a valuable resource for such purposes. >> >> It has to be unique. >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> /23 is 512 hosts, which is large by IXP standards. The PCH IXP directory >>> suggests there are about 20 IXPs worldwide which are larger than 256 >>> connected parties. >> >> And only 3 with more than 512 connected ASN. But can we imagine some ASN have >> more than 1 IP on the peering LAN ? >> >> I agree there is really a small chance an IXP will ask for more the /23. >> Still I >> can't see the point of this limitation. >> >> Denis >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
