nanog mailing list archives
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
From: Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:53:14 +1000
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 18:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
That makes sense. I do recall now reading about having that 8 bit separation between tiers of networks. However, in an IX everyone is supposed to be able to talk to everyone else. Traditionally (AFAIK), it's all been on the same subnet. At least the ones I've been involved with have been single subnets, but that's v4 too.
Think flexible, think big, think future. Limiting yourself to tiny subnets and assuming your circumstances and requirements will not change is a recipe for difficult times ahead. Go as large as you can now, and route between participants. They might not always be friends with each other, or indeed with you, and the ability to isolate, redirect, offload, recombine and filter is critical to the flexibility of your (future) product offering. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer () biplane com au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
Current thread:
- Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Karl Auer (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Brendan Halley (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Laszlo Hanyecz (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Charles Gucker (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Bill Woodcock (Apr 04)
- RE: Small IX IP Blocks Paul Stewart (Apr 05)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Will Hargrave (Apr 05)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mark Tinka (Apr 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Brandon Butterworth (Apr 05)