Hi all, Just wanted to bring this proposal back up again after being brought back for further discussions from APNIC 56.
There is no technical limitation preventing IXPs from using prefixes longer than a /24 delegation. There are IXP operators that do use shorter prefixes successfully today. Speaking to an IX operator, I asked a few questions about them operating IXPs with prefixes longer than a /24. Below is the Q&A: Q1: What was the catalyst for establishing an IX location at Location A and Location B? - I had the means and capacity to do so, to benefit the community in those locations. Q2: When deciding how to number these locations, what challenges (if any) did you face? - They are small locations that don't require larger prefixes, so there weren't really any challenges. Q3: Given the relative ease in renumbering an IX, why did you opt to use a /25 for each location instead of a /26? - Renumbering an IX is not easy, I have done this before and I do not wish to do it ever again. Why inconvenience peers, places like Location A have the potential for huge growth. Location B, no so much. Arguably you could do /25 and 2 x /26, but I chose not too. Q4: At what percentage of utilisation of the available space in each location would you consider renumbering them? - That's a tough one, assume /25 is used (which it is) then I'd say at ~75-80%. Q5: In your view, what benefits and detriments do you experience in using prefixes shorter than a /24? - Renumbering is difficult. Especially if your larger peers don't do it in a timely manner etc. The way that I understand things, I can't see a reason for this policy not reaching consensus. I would, however, suggest a few amendments/recommendations: 1. If a current IXP applies for space under this policy, they should be restricted from transferring new or existing delegations under any transfer conditions to prevent existing IXPs from applying for resources under this policy, renumbering their existing IXPs and then selling their old space. Should there be a requirement for a transfer under Mergers & Acquisitions, then the recipient acquiring the IXP or the organisation that the IXP is being merged into should be required to apply for a new delegation and renumber accordingly. This will not apply if the source and recipient members are identical in structure (i.e. same directors and shareholders, and the transfer is simply an organisation restructure). 2. New IXPs need to be able to demonstrate that they have the infrastructure to do so, to prevent people from applying for the sake of holding space and not actually using it. Given that new IXPs may not be willing to procure equipment for the operation of the IXP or enter into an contract with a datacentre provider unless the application for resources is approved, the APNIC Secretariat may elect to provide pre-approval for IP space, subject to the provisioning of a contract or other service agreement with a datacentre operator and purchase documentation (in the name of the organisation operating the IXP) being provided for space and infrastructure to operate the IXP. 3. IXP delegations should have a caveat placed upon them that prevents them from being globally routed, regardless of the size. 4. This point is beyond the scope of the Policy SIG however it is something the Secretariat and EC need to take into consideration, is that any fee structure selected for delegations under this policy does not detriment existing IXPs. For example, fees charged for a /25 IPv4 delegation would be 50% of what is currently charged for a /24 IPv4 delegation otherwise this policy may act as a deterrence from obtaining a longer prefix and would simply cause people to apply for a delegation under other policies. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
