* Angela Dall'Ara > A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-01, "Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment > default size to a /26" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to extend the lifetime of the IXP IPv4 > address pool and to motivate IXPs to implement the exchange of IPv4 > routing information over IPv6.
Hi, This proposal is a step in the right direction, although I feel it should have gone further. I've already elaborated on why in the «IXP pool lower boundary of assignments» thread, so I don't seek to re-hash that whole thread, but for the record I'll repeat the gist of it in the formal proposal thread: Since IPv4 is a finite resource that needs to last "forever", it seems wasteful to willfully assign too large prefixes to IXPs that do not need them. According to https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg, a /26 would be excessively large for a majority of IXPs. I would rather see a policy that did not specify a default size at all, but rather instructed the NCC to right-size each assignment according to the "at least 50% utilisation after a year" rule. Note that this should not be considered an objection to this proposal, as I mentioned before it is a step in the right direction, after all. With that out of the way, I have a few questions/comments: 1) Regarding «New IXPs will be initially assigned a /26 by default. Upon request, a /25 can be assigned initially. If the initial assignment has been utilised by at least 50%, IXPs can request the assignment of a /24»: This is somewhat difficult to decipher. Does it mean that: a) a new IXP can simply ask for an initial /25 and receive it, no questions asked? b) an existing IXP that has used 50% of an initial /26 will be able to upgrade straight to a /24, i.e., bypassing a /25? (Or even %50-of- /27→/24, in an unlikely but not impossible corner case.) To improve clarity, I would suggest not to mix the conditions for new IXPs / initial assignments with the conditions for already existing IXPs that seek to upgrade a previous assignment. 2) Regarding «Assignments strictly larger than a /24 will only be made to IXPs that offer the exchange of IPv4 routing information over IPv6 at their route servers»: a) What is the purpose / meaning of the word «strictly» here? I assume it is there for a reason, but removing it does not seem to me to change the meaning of the sentence in any way (but then again, I am not a native English speaker). b) Depending on whether one considers an assignment from the NCC to the IXPs as to be a continuous state or as a one-time event, this may cause an instant obligation on current holders of larger-than-/24 IXP prefixes to implement IPv4-over-IPv6 routing in their route servers. Is that the intention? Tore -- 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
