[arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

[John Osmon]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:44:26PM -0400, Ryan Woolley wrote:
[... two IXPs named...]

> Both IXPs have been assigned IP address space from ARIN.  Each IXP uses one
> prefix for the member LAN, which is not announced outside of our members’
> networks, and a second, routed, prefix for the IXP infrastructure.

I run a community IX and have been looking at this issue closely of late
as well.

I've come to the conclusion that the IX needs two blocks of unique
addressing in both IPv4 and IPv6.  One for the unannounced member LAN,
and another that is announced for the IX infrastructure for similar
reasons as Ryan:

> The routed prefix supports operations critical to the operation of the
> exchange.  Our member portal, network management systems, and equipment
> loopback addresses are, by need and design, addressed in routable IP
> space.  For example, route servers build filters based on ROAs and IRR
> databases, and configurations are replicated off-site.
> 
> Unlike an IXP affiliated with an ISP or data center operator, we have no
> line of business which would enable us to borrow IP space from, for
> example, a pool maintained for allocation to IP transit customers.  Our
> transit is provided as a donation by members, who may come or go as their
> connectivity needs require, so we cannot reasonably use
> non-provider-independent IP space.

When reading Ryan's note, I felt like he'd pulled lines directly from
conversations I've had with our members lately. We were about to move
forward with a request for PI space.  I await hearing views from others.


-- 
John Osmon
New Mexico Internet Exhange dba ABQIX