The logic on both sides seems valid to me. I think ultimately it's about
supporting the demise of v4 (in that, the rise of efficient smaller
operators).
There is what seems a valid case to shift this to /26 minimum, and also
bedded-down tradition where the existing baseline is unlikely to
significantly change - especially for what should be a primarily
yesteryear technology. I think there may be a silently resistant subset
of operators who don't want to get into the nitty gritty of smaller
assignments at scale, not that it is necessarily good form.
From my understanding of the BGP arena, which is lacking,
administratively and in terms of routing table size /24 is already quite
small. However at the same time, small operators shouldn't have to take
up "large" (to their scale) prefixes to establish basic requirements. It
does seem unreasonable that you can't get down into /26 per-site,
especially as density increase could potentially be up to 3x more yield
from a /24?
I like the logic behind the 2nd comment you've replied to ("members
define policy...") Chris, that if consensus can be reached then change
can be effected. Indeed this is the whole concept of the open forum as
in SIG-Policy to critically discuss and "try to swiss cheese" change
proposals, with a view that if the cheese holds up then change can and
should be taken forwards.
With a view forwards, and v4 becoming more of an
enabling-what-doesn't-do-v6-well technology as it slowly slowly (slowly)
sunsets, I think this proposal will make even more sense. To that end,
making the change sooner than later seems prudent in preserving
resources, especially as this proposal has provision for up to /22
conditionally.
To Owen's point it is also "just another change" towards prolonging the
end of v4 and one many are tired of. I think the pathway out of v4 has
proven to be remarkably slow and resistant, that it makes sense to aid
the sunset rather than push against it.
At the same time, should this gain consensus then where /does/ the line
get drawn?
Thanks,
Luke
On 21/12/2023 10:33 am, Christopher Hawker wrote:
Longer prefixes are misguided for a number of reasons, but I was’t referring to
that.
I was calling the idea of deluding ourselves into believing that the useful
lifetime of IPv4 can be extended by these ever increasing extreme measures
misguided.
This is starting to digress from the original purpose of this discussion, so
I'll keep it short. Using longer prefixes is by no means delusional, rather it
is significantly beneficial in allowing smaller and newer network operators to
establish more than two points of presence, and it most certainly prevents
wastage at IXes.
Again, members define policy (be it a routing policy or otherwise). If a
community member presents a policy about the routability of prefixes longer
than a /24 at an open policy meeting and it reaches consensus with the wider
community, why should we not accept it? RIRs do so much more than just
administering addresses and if that's all they did, I believe the internet
would not be the way that it is today.
Well, at least in the ARIN region, there is a concept of scope of the PDP and
policy proposals which are out of scope are rejected out of hand.
Unfortunately I do not know enough about ARIN's PDP so I'm probably not the
best person to comment on this specifically.
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
