Search RPD Archives
owen at delong.com
Mon Jun 8 17:12:02 UTC 2015
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 07:27 , h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote:
> I support this proposal.
> Just two questions:
> 1. Will /16 be sufficient for foreseeable future for IXPs? Consider RIPE already have near complete infrastructure of IXPs, Africa in practical has none.
A /16 is between 64 and 256 exchange points (assuming that no IXP gets larger than /22). As a general rule, growth of an exchange beyond /22 is
unprecedented at least so far and IMHO, unlikely.
IIRC there are 54 countries in the AfriNIC service region. So at a minimum, this is almost 1.2 exchange points per country if they all grow to /22.
In reality, it’s more like an average of 2 exchange points per country.
I think that is more than sufficient for the remaining life of IPv4 as an important protocol on the global internet.
> 2. Should none-transferable condition to be added in the policy in case of future possible transfer policy.
This can be done as part of the transfer policy development if the community feels that such is desirable.
Saddling an existing policy with language aimed at a policy which is not even a draft as yet is silly in my opinion.
>> 在 2015年6月8日，下午4:09，Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> 写道：
>> during this policy proposal, someone asked for a reference to what’s happening in the RIPE NCC region.
>> although this was also mentioned at the mic by the attending RIPE NCC staff, i’ll repost the URL (which was earlier sent to the pdp-wg co-chairs) to the mailing list:
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD