Hello, answering with my hat as one of the co-authors of the corresponding RIPE policy on, also with my hat as "working at an IXP":
> On 1. Sep 2023, at 06:44, Satoru Tsurumaki <[email protected]> wrote: > > (comment details) > - Renumbering is very labor intensive. Some users may stop planning > to connect to the /26 IXP because they do not want to renumber in the > future. yes. But it is manageable. We did it several times for *large* IXPs. And before anyone suggests netmask change instead of renumbering: Our experience shows that netmask change is way more painful than renumbering. > > - It is hard to imagine that so many new IXPs will be established > before IPv4 addresses run out, So it is assumed that the IPv4 > that can be saved will be limited. we have seen many *very small" IXPs popping up who never will need a /24. Have a look at this study my colleague Matthias did: https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg Having said that - I am all in favor of this policy change best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | [email protected] Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
