Dear concern; Assalamu Alaikum Greetings from ISPAB-NIX !!! All IXPs in the world need an experienced representation of how they operate. Then the idea of IPv4 can be found in IXP. IXP started in Bangladesh in 2004. In terms of development, we need to have a plan on what kind of IXP sustainability should be in our country. Along with that, we should think about expanding content delivery network (CDN) to IXPs in our country. Expanding thinking /23, /22 is not enough. IXPAB-NIX is planning on that. IPV4 growth needs to be corrected.Please feel free to contact us for any further information in this regard.
*With Kinds Regards* *------------------------------* *NIX-KABIR* *Mobile Number # +880-1711435267* *Skype# kabirrana5* On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 9:51 PM Simon Sohel Baroi <[email protected]> wrote: > Alamgir Vai, > > Thanks for your valuable inputs and comments. > > > > *IXP is a small field but its vision works on a much larger scale. In > terms of PoP-expansion of IXPs depends on market dynamics factors such as > availability of ISPs, CDNs and Telcos. such as in marginal areas where new > IXPs will be planned and set up.-> *IXP plays a crucial role in Internet > architecture.But among the 56 economies, not all markets are the same. Some > small and some are big. A new IX has the potential to grow quickly and > handle heavy traffic. IXPAB-NIX (NIX-BD) is an excellent instance. We made > an effort to provide a step-up approach so that IXPs may expand quickly. > Additionally, new IXPs should not waste unused IPv4 Resources. > Today, obtaining IPV4 resources is fairly simple;however, tomorrow may be > different. > > *The proposal does not in any way promote or assist in the expansion of > IXP. The default size of IP assignments cannot be /23 to /26 by any means. * > > > *-> *The proposal allows the IXPs to grow bigger and get upto /22, where > the present policy is limited to /23. According to the expansion of IXPs in > the area, all national level IXPs will soon need those kinds of resources. > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:15 AM Md Alamgir Kabir <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Dear Concern; >> >> Greetings from NIX-BD !!! >> Good luck with a new proposal "prop-154-v001. Resizing the IPv4 >> assignment for IXPs should get input from those who have worked in the >> practical field. IXP is a small field but its vision works on a much larger >> scale. In terms of PoP-expansion of IXPs depends on market dynamics >> factors such as availability of ISPs, CDNs and Telcos. such as in marginal >> areas where new IXPs will be planned and set up. The proposal does not in >> any way promote or assist in the expansion of IXP. The default size of IP >> assignments cannot be /23 to /26 by any means. So this proposal is >> irrelevant for IXP.Please feel free to contact us for any further >> information in this regard. >> >> *With Kinds Regards* >> *------------------------------* >> *Md Alamgir Kabir* >> *ISPAB-NIX* >> *Mobile Number # +880-1711435267* >> *Skype# kabirrana5* >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 10:12 AM Shaila Sharmin < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear SIG members, >>> >>> A new proposal "prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs" >>> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >>> >>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 56 on >>> Thursday, >>> 14 September 2023. >>> >>> https://conference.apnic.net/56/program/program/#/day/8/ >>> >>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list >>> before >>> the OPM. >>> >>> The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important part >>> of the Policy Development Process (PDP). >>> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal: >>> >>> - Do you support or oppose this proposal? >>> - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, >>> tell the community about your situation. >>> - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? >>> - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >>> - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more >>> effective? >>> >>> Information about this proposal is appended below as well as available >>> at: >>> >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-154 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam >>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> prop-154-v001: Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPs >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Proposer: Simon Sohel Baroi ([email protected]) >>> Aftab Siddiqui >>> >>> >>> 1. Problem statement >>> -------------------- >>> According to APNIC Internet Number Resource Policies ( Ref – APNIC-127, >>> Dated: 22 DEC, 2022 ), >>> an Internet Exchange Point ( IXP ) is eligible to receive a maximum /23 >>> of IPv4 and /48 of IPv6 >>> resources. Usually APNIC assign one /24 to start a new IXP. But from >>> analysis through PeeringDB, >>> we found most of the places the resources have been under-utilised and >>> new >>> IXPs are wasting a large >>> amount of valuable IPv4 spaces. On the other side there are large IXP, >>> who can’t grow due to >>> lack of IP resources, where /23 is not enough as the membership number >>> is big. The size of the >>> minimum and maximum range of IP delegation to new or existing IXPs is >>> the main problem in the >>> current policy. >>> >>> Present IXP Status in APAC region from PeeringDB [5] : >>> >>> +-------------------+-------+------------+-------+---------- >>> -----------------+ >>> | IX Names | Peers | ....Vs.... | Peers | IX >>> Names | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | BBIX Tokyo | 299 | | 17 | >>> BBIX-Thailand | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | JPIX TOKYO | 257 | | 3 | >>> MekongIX | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | Equinix Tokyo | 131 | | 2 | Equinix >>> Mumbai | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | JPNAP Tokyo | 211 | | 13 | npIX >>> JWL | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | HKIX | 296 | | 3 | Vanuatu Internet >>> Exchange | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | Equinix Hong Kong | 216 | | 4 | >>> MyNAP | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | Equinix Singapore | 422 | | 25 | DE-CIX Kuala >>> Lumpur | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | IIX-Jakarta | 449 | | 13 | >>> IIX-Lampung | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | DECIX-Mumbai | 446 | | 14 | Decix >>> Kolkata | >>> +-------------------+-------+ +-------+---------------------------+ >>> | MegaIX Sydney | 232 | | 46 | EdgeIX - >>> Melbourne | >>> +-------------------+-------+------------+-------+---------- >>> -----------------+ >>> >>> >>> 2. Objective of policy change >>> ----------------------------- >>> The objective of this proposal is to modify the default size of IPv4 >>> assignments for IXPs >>> from /23 to /26, which can receive a replacement up to a maximum of a >>> /22, provided the >>> IXP returns the IPv4 address space previously assigned to them. >>> >>> >>> 3. Situation in other regions >>> ----------------------------- >>> Similar policy has been adopted by RIPE NCC ( ripe-733 : IPv4 Address >>> Allocation and >>> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region ) [4] >>> >>> >>> 4. Proposed policy solution >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> Current Policy text: >>> >>> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points >>> Internet Exchange Points (IXP) are eligible to receive a delegation from >>> APNIC to be used >>> exclusively to connect the IXP participant devices to the Exchange Point. >>> >>> Global routability of the delegation is left to the discretion of the >>> IXP and its participants. >>> >>> New Policy text: >>> >>> 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points >>> >>> By default, a /26 of IPv4 address block will be assigned to the new IXPs. >>> >>> IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /25 when they can justify having >>> more than 60 peers >>> on the IXP fabric (peering LAN) in the next 12 months. >>> >>> IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /24 when they can justify having >>> more than 100 peers on >>> the IXP fabric (peering LAN) in the next 12 months. >>> >>> If it is a national IXP and the said economy doesn’t have more than 60 >>> registered APNIC members >>> or resource holders (from other RIRs or legacy space holders) then there >>> is no justification to >>> have more than /27 assignments. >>> >>> An IXP which received an assignment less than /24 can request upto /23 >>> IPv4, only if 60% of >>> the original assignment has been used. The existing assignment must be >>> returned by the IXP >>> within 3 months of the new assignment. >>> >>> Existing Large IXPs that already have used their maximum assignment of >>> /23 from current policy can >>> request a contiguous block (if available) of /22, only if they have >>> already used 80% of existing >>> assignments. The existing assignment must be returned by the IXP within 3 >>> months of the new assignment. >>> >>> Any resources less than /24 assigned under this policy will not be >>> announced in the global routing table >>> (mistakes are exempted) and must be used for IXP peering only, in case >>> otherwise the resources will be >>> revoked by APNIC. >>> >>> Global routability of the delegation outside this policy is left to the >>> discretion of the IXP and its >>> participants. >>> >>> >>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >>> ----------------------------- >>> Advantages: >>> This proposal will ensure rapid expansion of IXPs in terms of membership >>> and PoP numbers for this region >>> and smoothen allocation of IPv4. Reducing the default assignment size to >>> /26 would stop wasting a large >>> amount of valuable IPv4 space. >>> >>> >>> Disadvantages: >>> When the IXP operator jumps into a bigger block of IPv4 and returns the >>> existing one, then they might be >>> required to renumber all routers connected to that IXP fabric (peering >>> LAN). >>> >>> 6. Impact on APNIC >>> ------------------ >>> The IXP who already became an APNIC member and has less IPv4 Resources >>> can also apply for maximum delegation >>> for their expansion. >>> >>> >>> References >>> ---------- >>> [1] Section 6.2.4. IPv4 for Internet Exchange Points. >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_6_2_4 >>> >>> [2] Section 9.1.3. IPv6 for Internet Exchange Points. >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_9_1_3 >>> >>> [3] Section 11.1.2. Conditions on source of the transfer >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_11_1 >>> >>> [4] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC >>> Service Region >>> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 >>> >>> [5] PeeringDB >>> https://www.peeringdb.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > *Simon Sohel Baroi *| 45/c Senpara Parbata, Mirpur-10, Dhaka-1216 | > Cell : +880-184-7102243 | Viber / Cell : +880-181-7022207 | > Mail : [email protected] | Skype : tx.fttx | > > *Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Respect. It's the little things that really can > make a difference.* >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
