Hi Chris, thanks for your feedback. On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 09:33, Christopher H <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > If I'm setting up an IX in Sydney today justifying a /23 is not a problem at all but as per the current text it says up to /24 for new allocations "*IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /24*". But this can be updated to "*IXPs can seek an assignment of up to a /23 or current highest allocation size provided they can provide justification*". This change will address your concern > > 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. > I don't see it as a discrimination, an economy of less than half a million people can't have more than 15-20 ISPs or enterprises with their own networks, giving them the right amount of resources to establish and run the IXP is more important. While we are on the edge of IPv4 running out from the registry pool it's better to utilize them diligently and make sure everyone who needs it has some portion of it. Second change I can propose is to "*reserve /20 for small IXP allocations*" so we can guarantee a fair allocation to smaller economies in the coming future. > > Regards, > Christopher H. > Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
