Hey Luke, /26 prefixes would ultimately be ideal, however, I believe there would be a far less chance of routability of a /26 being accepted by the community as opposed to a /25. For example, if the community were to commence accepting /25 routes this (under the current /23 delegation policy) would allow new network operators to establish a PoP in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth (for Australian operators). New Zealand? Queenstown/Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland.
Back to the delegations of longer prefixes for IXPs (and putting aside the routability aspect of things)... IXPs are already using longer prefixes. MegaIX Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver and Miami are already using a /26, MegaIX New York, and EdgeIX Hobart and Darwin are using a /25 each. On the other hand, MegaIX Singapore has an entire /22 allocated for all of 39 peers (according to PeeringDB as of 13:50 AEDT on 21/12/2023). This is what I would call a significant waste of resources. I get that Singapore is an entire country however, when you look at MegaIX Sydney using a /23 which has 221 peers with 263 connections, a /22 for 39 peers is unjustifiable. If longer prefixes are already being actively used by IXPs without technical issues, the community should agree with the delegation of longer prefixes directly by APNIC rather than having to obtain a /24 and subnet it themselves, especially where there's no need for a complete /24. I can't see an argument for longer prefixes not being delegated. If people don't wish to accept longer routes it's their prerogative, however this should not prevent newer operators from being able to use them. Thanks, Christopher Hawker On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 12:03, Luke Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
