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

[Martin Hannigan]

As original proposal author then policy I can tell everyone the reason
theres no mention of route ability or network operations is because it
wasn’t considered at all. Thats the sole reason why theres no trail of it.
Not on PPML, AC or Trustee discussion archives.

The block size was noted only to ensure the policy guaranteed a) enough
size/scale clear to staff and b) enable sparse allocation to allow adjacent
assignments in an attempt to limit IX expansion pain. Tried to think ahead.

+1 Ryan/CIX

Martin Hannnigan
Lightboard



On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 20:04 Chris Malayter <mustang at terahertz.net> wrote:

> I support Ryan/CommunityIX as well.
>
> Chris Malayter
> CoreSite
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:01 PM, John Osmon <josmon at rigozsaurus.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240418/c8a500d7/attachment-0001.htm>