Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Hi, On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 06:47:34PM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: > On 29.05.2019 17:45, Gert Doering wrote: > > IXPs say they need globally unique space, and they are the experts here. > > The same was true some years back, when the mobile operators asked for some > dozen /16s for their

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On Wed, May 29, 2019, at 17:48, Gert Doering wrote: > Does this matter? For the IXP - definitely no. For the rest of the pool - maybe. This is why I was asking. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On 29.05.2019 17:45, Gert Doering wrote: > IXPs say they need globally unique space, and they are the experts here. The same was true some years back, when the mobile operators asked for some dozen /16s for their customers. They didn't get those blocks, they were forced to look for

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Dear Nick, all, On 29 May 2019, at 15:41, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Could the NCC provide any stats on how many /22s have been assigned under the > IXP assignment policy? Since September 2012, when the current IXP assignment policy came into effect, the RIPE NCC has issued 1x /22 and 3x /23

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Gert Doering wrote on 29/05/2019 16:45: IXPs say they need globally unique space, and they are the experts here. From an architectural point of view, it's a good idea to use publicly registered numbering resources when interconnecting with third parties. IXPs are an extreme case of this

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Thank you for the video.As we can see, there are many solutions for IPXs with little difficulty in implementation without additional IPv4 space.Similar solutions for many other cases do not exist. For example, for hosting companies that need IPv4 more. 29.05.2019, 17:42, "Aris Lambrianidis"

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Hi, On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:13:15PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Those being said, I'm in favour of the proposal. Just one reserve > on wording of the assignment of "dust" (less than /24): if a request > (for smaller than /24) is being made before the reserved pool > exhaustion, will

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Hi, 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. IXPs say they need globally unique space, and they are the experts here. Could people *not*

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On 29/05/2019 15:41, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Could the NCC provide any stats on how many /22s have been assigned > under the IXP assignment policy? Agreed! Any historical data/graphs are a welcomed addition to the discussion. > /23 is 512 hosts, which is large by IXP standards. The PCH IXP

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

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 With these in mind, I don't think RFC1918 addresses are a clean, scalable solution which works,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:13:15PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > The alternative is that in just a few years it will no longer provide IXPs > with any space. > Well, I agree that standing against this proposal on such a small point is a bit strong (I am totally in favor of reserving a /15

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Moin, on 29.05.2019 14:17, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for > IXPs" is now available for discussion. > > This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and > finetune assignment

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On Wed, May 29, 2019, at 15:11, Denis Fondras wrote: > Just because of "It no longer provides for IXPs that need more than a > /23 of IPv4 > space" I am against this proposal. Hi, The alternative is that in just a few years it will no longer provide IXPs with any space. Right now, according to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

They can’t. What participant uses it already in their network ? With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

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. 29.05.2019, 15:18, "Marco Schmidt" : > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for > IXPs" is now available for

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Denis Fondras wrote on 29/05/2019 14:11: On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and finetune assignment criteria. You can find the full proposal at:

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and > finetune assignment criteria. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 > Just because of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)

Hi Kai, > I don't see this either, hence, while I agree that there should be some > wording about the way the (already implicit) waiting list will be > implemented/handled, I reject the proposal as-is due to the reduction of the > assignment size. > > Reducing the assignment for new LIRs from

[address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and finetune assignment criteria. You can find the full proposal at:

[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)

Hi, on 06.05.2019 13:10, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" is now in the > Review Phase. > > This proposal aims at creating a waiting list based on an allocation size of > /24 once the RIPE NCC’s free IPv4 pool is exhausted.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)

On 2019 May 12 (Sun) at 11:56:02 +0200 (+0200), Hansen, Christoffer wrote: : :On 07/05/2019 12:57, Randy Bush wrote: :> On 06/05/2019 13:10, Marco Schmidt wrote: :>> Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" :>> is now in the Review Phase. :> :> we are here to do what we can to