Hi Abhishek,
> I oppose this proposal. Expansion of IXPs in terms of Membership and PoPs > depend upon factors of market dynamics like availability of ISPs, CDNs and > Telcos at a particular region where new IXP is to be planned and set up. > The proposal in no way promote or help in IXP expansion. > You are right, the membership of an IXP depends upon the availability of ISPs, CDNs and Telcos in that economy. There are 56 economies in the APINC service region, out of those 33 economies have less than 50 ASNs delegated to them, even if you add handful of CDNs and/or foreign networks who wants to peer in that IX, you are still pretty much covered with a single IPv4 /26. > Further there are IXPs which still operate in L3 architecture and require > bigger chunk of IP subnets for their operations. > First of all, no IXP should operate in L3 architecture. Secondly, the proposal is not stopping any IXP to operate with a bigger IPv4 allocation if they can justify it. APNIC still requires you to provide justification of use even today. > Restricting the default size of IP assignments from /23 to /26 will > further delay and hamper the operations. > How? Can you please provide some examples? > Almost all the IXPs are dual stack (IPv4 and IPv6) and run BGP > configurations of v6 as well . So this proposal is irrelevant for IXPs. > Dual stack means IPv4 and IPv6, you still need v4 to make it "Dual" stack. I'm still struggling to understand what is the correlation? If you are making the point which Sanjeev and Owen made then I totally agree but they are not talking about dual stack. > > Regards. > Abhishek Gautam > +919703728000 > > >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
