Hello Team, I support parts of this proposal, while I oppose others.
In some economies (to use Australia as an example), there are significant numbers of network operators. If an IXP were to start out and then have a requirement to re-number and expand, the bigger the IX becomes the harder it becomes to renumber. Let's look at MegaIX Sydney, and hypothesise that this policy was in place when they were reaching 80% utilisation (204 IP addresses) of a /24 subnet. It would be a significant challenge for all 204 peers, plus the route servers, to renumber and re-establish their peering sessions. The more peers you have, the harder it becomes. Let's look at other economies such as Vanuatu, where they have such a small IX. I feel that in circumstances like this, it's not justifiable to allocate an entire /24 to an IX which has less than 5 peers. Given the size of the economy, it's unlikely (for the foreseeable future) that they will see requirements for anything greater than a /26 subnet. Having said the above, we cannot discriminate economies based on the number of participants in delegating assignments. It may be better suited to restrict delegations to a /24 then if the need arises to renumber to a /23 they are given a 6-month window to return the former holding, and if they need to go from a /22 they are given 12 months. Whilst they hold these resources during the transition, they are responsible for any membership fees. Regards, Christopher H. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
