[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 21:59:28 EDT 2014
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>> - increase the reserve pool to a /15
>> - increase the minimum allocation for an IXP to a /22
> Quadrupling the allocation while doubling the pool halves the number of IXPs served, and I think it would be unfortunate and short-sighted to let that happen.
> To inject some facts into the debate:
> That graph is from 2011, when there were five IXPs with more than 255 participants.
> Today, three years later, there are six IXPs with more than 255 participants. So the portion of IXPs with more than 255 participants is holding steady at 1.5%. In 2011, there were no IXPs with more than 512 participants, and today, there's one such, but it took sixteen years to get to that point.
Thanks. I spotted checked your data. Two problems. First, conclusions
from 2011 are woefully ancient. Second, your data is wrong e.g. ams-ix
you note as 617 and there current count is 680.There are quite a few
other inaccuracies contrasted to more mainstream data sources. Still,
[ clip ]
> I support doubling the size of the reserved pool to a /15, but I don't think increasing the initial allocation size beyond a /24 is warranted yet. I think sparse allocation is a sensible policy. We can be reasonably certain that there will be at least 512 more IXPs before people stop caring about IPv4, but it's far from a sure bet that _any_ of those would grow beyond a /23 in that time.
I agree, doubling is reasonable. The allocation unit compromise is
making allocations from sparse boundaries no shorter than a /22 IMHO.
Where does this /15 come from? Existing free pool would make sense to me.
More information about the ARIN-PPML