Dear all, As one of the proposers I would like to point out that this proposal is not about changing the default allocation size for IXPs, and as such I personally consider suggestions to change it out of scope for a discussion on this policy. On top of that, I don’t think it’s substantive opposition to enlarging the lifespan of the IXP pool, which is what this proposal aims to achieve - rather, I consider it an expansion of what is being proposed (do THIS and do THAT, too).
That said, having seen the arguments and numbers, I will personally commit to drafting a policy proposal to change the default IXP location size to something smaller (/25, /26, /27?) once the process on the current proposal has been concluded. (With apologies to Radu for stealing his thread to reply) Kind regards Remco van Mook > On 12 Aug 2019, at 10:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, at 10:59, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it >> is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the >> opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an >> important function for the Internet as a whole. > > +1 > We should go on with the current version. > *IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you > can still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the > extra space secured. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
