Hello, Would somebody from NCC be able to clarify how would the wording "must return the existing assignment (or existing PI used as an IXP peering LAN)" (proposed text 6.1.4 and 6.1.5) be interpreted/implemented for the case of IXPs that use ASSIGNED PA space for the peering LAN. OK, it's the same wording that already exists in the current policy, but a clarification is welcome.
Otherwise the proposal seems reasonable. On Mon, Jan 9, 2023, at 11:40, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-01, "Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment > default size to a /26" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to extend the lifetime of the IXP IPv4 > address pool and to motivate IXPs to implement the exchange of IPv4 > routing information over IPv6. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01 > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide > feedback to the proposer. > > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of > the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. > > The PDP document can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > [email protected] before 7 February 2023. > > > Kind regards, > > Angela Dall'Ara > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -- > > 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 -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -- 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
