[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Tue May 8 11:50:23 CEST 2012
Hi Gert, I fully aggree with your arguments this time. Best, Geza On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 May 2012. > > > > I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . > > > > In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping > up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. > > > > If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of > the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 > from the final /8 enough? > > > > 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve > a /16 (256 /24's ) > > > > I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. > > Formally, we can't change anything "just so" at this point in the PDP - so > we'd have to go back to review phase, draft a new policy text, and then > re-do review phase and last call. > > If you think this is important enough, please formally voice "strong and > sustained opposition" - which is what it takes to bounce the proposal > back to review phase. > > OTOH, since this came from the EIX WG, I think they have a pretty good > idea on the number of IXPs to be expected world-wide, and how much growth > to expect there over the next 5-10 years. Since they seem to be happy > with the proposal as it stands, with a /16, and the constraints that this > brings with it (= 256 new small IXPs, or 128 new IXPs with a /23, etc.), > I would prefer to accept their assumptions and go forward. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120508/33b2fea8/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]