On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:42 PM Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jahangir, > Peering lan should never be on the global routing table whether you > support this policy or not. Even the peering lan of existing IXP are not > advertised to global routing table. > Aftab, so for my new IX, I will get a /26 for the LAN (I have 10 members), and a /24 (or /23) (because I am a member)? After all, I need global reachability for my lg, my portal, my member page How does this help conserve resources? Why not give me a /24, and let me handle what I need, etc? Despite repeated wisdom, /25 (with a Route Object, and IRR) is as visible as a /24 in general. My concern remains: why are IXs a special case at all? As Vivek responded, it is not like we have a separate pool for them anyway. Why treat them special? Now, if you were proposing that an IX (to be encouraged) should be able to request a /18 (!), now that might *encourage* IXs. But again, someone this large is likely to be commercial, they can afford to spend the money to buy (dare I say "lease" a /18).
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
