On 25 Oct 2011, at 19:06, Remco Van Mook wrote:

> With some first hand experience in setting up Exchanges, I would suggest
> the following:
> - a new IXP gets a /24
> - an existing IXP that runs out of its /24 (whether from this /16 or
> another range) gets a /23 and has to return the old /24
> - an existing IXP that runs out of its /23 (whether from this /16 or
> another range) gets a /22 and has to return the old /23
> (Yes, this means renumbering every single time. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, if
> you run out of a /22 for your peering LAN you're fresh out of luck.)

This is sane logic, but it feels very much like userland^Wimplementation documentation rathe than policy to me.  Agree ?  I don't mind it being in the policy though as it sounds very sane.

> And while we're at it, I would suggest to add to 5.6.4:
>
> c. Any address space that is returned by an IXP will be added to the
> reserve as outlined in 5.6.2.

Agreed.

Andy