Moin, on 29.05.2019 14:17, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for > IXPs" is now available for discussion. > > This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and > finetune assignment criteria. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 > > […]
Why is there a need for "globally-unique (but not necessarily globally-routed) IPv4 space" for IXPs? The IXPs I've experienced explicitely prohibit announcment (i. e. routing) of their space nor announce it theirselves; so why spend another whole /15 as private address space? Obviously, there is no need for global routabillity, where is the need for global uniqueness and why can't this be solved differently (everyone has to cope with IPv4 scarceness, why can't IXPs)? As the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses depletes, new IXPs will need to adopt new strategies, just like their customers. I'd support a movement to repurpose e. g. 198.18.0.0/15 for post-exhaustion IXP address space — if that's coordinated between the RIRs, it would help to support emerging IXPs for some time. Churning even more IPv4 space for local uses feels wrong: I oppose 2019-05. Regards, -kai
