* Gert Doering > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs).
The IA states that the NCC can set aside the required /16 already at the point in time when this proposal enters Last Call. As I understand it, this means we have enough time to cut another version of this proposal if we want to. In particular, I am disappointed that the authors did not implement (or even comment on) my discussion phase suggestion[1] to use the 5.2 Unforeseen Circumstances pool for the IXP pool expansion. It is perfectly sized at /16, and it is adjacent to the current IXP pool, which means the resulting new IXP pool would have been an *actual* /15. As I understand the current proposal and the NCC's impact analysis, implementation of this proposal would necessarily mean that the resulting IXP pool would be at best two disjoint /16s, at worst one /16 plus a bunch of smaller fragments scattered all over the address space. That'd be a shame, in my opinion. [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-May/012885.html Tore
