[179245] in North American Network Operators' Group
Small IX IP Blocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Sat Apr 4 17:08:08 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <13831159.13894.1428179660929.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even though we never expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how do we do v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each. That one seems more cut and dry. A NANOG BCOP says to subnet no smaller than /64, so that makes sense to have one for each location. However, that brings me back to v4. Should I be cutting that /24 down into say /25s or /26s? We don't expect to have more than a /27 worth of networks at any one location, so a /26 should provide enough risk avoidance in not re-numbering an IX. That said... maybe best practice is to just leave it as /24. That's what I've seen at the other small IXes.
Yes, I looked at NANOG's BCOPs and an article put out by Euro-IX. Didn't see much there.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
