* Matthias Wichtlhuber > Moreover, I have updated the analysis to include /29s (which I > previously cut off). Only ~25% of all IXPs would fit into such a > small peering LAN. Setting the default to /29 will likely cripple the > growth of IXes. There is also no benefit in retaining these resources > if they are needed. > > https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg
Thank you for updating! It is always nice to have real data to look at. I think I disagree with your use of «only». 25% isn't «only» in my opinion, that's a quite considerable share of the total. If I read your report correctly, the group of IX-es that will manage comfortably with a /29 is in fact the largest group of them all! (Here I do say manage "comfortably" since your report state that it assumes 100% oversubscription, which I take to mean that the IX-es in each bracket can *at least* double their member count without running out of addresses.) Also I don't understand your «crippling the growth» concern. The 75% if IX-es that need something bigger then a /29, they would of course get something bigger – just like they do today, if they need something bigger than a /24. Has today's policy, where /24 is the default, «crippled» any IX from growing past 254 connected members? If not, how exactly would a default /29 policy «cripple» an IX from growing past 6 members, or a default /28 «cripple» it from growing past 14 members for that matter? Or to put it another way: if we change the default to /25 or /26 as you propose, wouldn't that change – in the exact same way as for /29 – «cripple the growth» of those IX-es past 126 or 62 connected members? If so, how come that is OK, if it isn't OK for /29? Tore -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
