I did a quick search on my router, and I see: sanjeev@P14W11:/mnt/c/Users/sanje/Desktop$ grep -e '/2[789]' someroutes.txt | sort | uniq DAb 1.6.73.96/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb 12.229.60.8/29 210.23.3.65 20 DAb + 1.6.1.64/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.140.80/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.148.0/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.19.224/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.195.176/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.195.96/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.2.160/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.215.144/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.215.160/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.23.224/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.4.192/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.67.160/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.70.48/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.75.128/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.75.64/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.8.16/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.8.224/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.6.9.16/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.143.160/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.177.16/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.177.32/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.179.160/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.188.160/28 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.193.0/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.193.160/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.196.0/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.196.224/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.197.0/27 103.241.63.130 20 DAb + 1.7.224.64/28 103.241.63.130 20
So, as a new IX (current 20, planned 50 peers), I have 2 choices with the new policy: 1. I come in as a new, normal, Member. I get a /24 (to save costs). I announce the lower /25 for my looking glass, etc, and the upper /25 for my Peering LAN. 2. Or, under the new policy, I get a /26 for my LAN, and apply for a /24 (the minimum) for my public resources. So the new policy makes it MORE expensive for me to tell APNIC I am an IX. Plus my fear that I might start doing well, and need to renumber (or I can tell people, sorry, the IX is full, please wait till someone leaves). Under option 1, if I grow, I get another /24, move my LG and www, and expand the peering LAN. Or I save significant money, I announce the LOWER /28 (my LG), and expand the Peering LAN to the full /24. Under option 2, I need to renumber. So tell me (I asked last week): when you say: > 5. Advantages > This proposal will ensure rapid expansion of IXPs in terms of membership > and POP numbers for this region what do you mean? You specifically force pain onto me every time I wish to expand, and you rub it in by saying you are encouraging "rapid expansion" (This is apart from my general background opposition to special cases and tinkering. Please, let v4 changes die. Let Sunny and Chimi finish handing out what they have, to whomever applies, and let us move on) -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:11 PM Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
