A more rational threshold for that measurement would be 248 or even 240 participants.
Consider most IXPs have at least a couple of route servers (2 IPs) and likely need some numbers for the physical infrastructure of the IXP. Additionally, there are only 254 usable IP addresses in a /24, and having a 100% full IXP is, IMHO, indicative of an IXP that needs more space. I'm fine with doubling the size of the pool. I have no problem with IXPs receiving /22s or any other size prefix they need for their operations. I do have a problem with the idea that the minimum prefix for all IXPs should be /22. That's just absurd. Owen On Sep 30, 2014, at 16:12 , Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: >> - increase the reserve pool to a /15 >> - increase the minimum allocation for an IXP to a /22 > > Quadrupling the allocation while doubling the pool halves the number of IXPs > served, and I think it would be unfortunate and short-sighted to let that > happen. > > To inject some facts into the debate: > > http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology/internet-traffic-exchange_5k918gpt130q-en#page78 > > That graph is from 2011, when there were five IXPs with more than 255 > participants. > > https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/?new=1&show_inactive=1&sort=Participants&order=desc > > Today, three years later, there are six IXPs with more than 255 participants. > So the portion of IXPs with more than 255 participants is holding steady at > 1.5%. In 2011, there were no IXPs with more than 512 participants, and > today, there’s one such, but it took sixteen years to get to that point. > > There’s a case to be made that a /24 will serve 98.5% of the IXP population, > and that we shouldn’t be making policy tailored for the one quarter of one > percent of the IXP population that needs a /22. On the other hand, IXPs will > grow. I think caution dictates reserving a larger pool, but I don’t know > that it makes sense to give _everyone_ allocations that meet their best-case > sixteen-year growth projections. > > I support doubling the size of the reserved pool to a /15, but I don’t think > increasing the initial allocation size beyond a /24 is warranted yet. I > think sparse allocation is a sensible policy. We can be reasonably certain > that there will be at least 512 more IXPs before people stop caring about > IPv4, but it’s far from a sure bet that _any_ of those would grow beyond a > /23 in that time. > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
