[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Dec 23 15:50:16 EST 2014


On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> So far there has been very little discussion on this policy.
>

Not really. I recall a huge thread previously that demonstrated much
support. What's the hold up?


>
> Therefore, as one of the AC shepherds for this policy I would like to
> initiate some discussion of this policy.  Here are a few questions for the
> ARIN community to think about and provide feedback on;
>
> - The current CI reservation is for all CI not just IXPs, the problem
> statement discusses growth primarily in the IXPs as justification to expand
> the reservation.  Should we split off a separate reservation pool for
> IXPs?  Or, keep the current common CI pool?
>

If you want to complicate this further, yes, let's do that. If not, are you
suggesting that there still isn't a large enough reservation?

I see some merit in your suggestion, but dragging this out beyond
exhaustion doesn't sound like a wise idea. I'd go with a larger reservation
if you are concerned and have data points.



>
> - ARIN-2011-4 the policy that made the original CI reservation had a
> Policy Term of 36 Months following implementation, but this was not in the
> policy text itself and therefore did not get included in the NRPM.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_4.html
>
> If applicable, this would have expired July 2014.  So, should there be
> expiration date included in this policy text?  If there should be no
> expiration date, should we explicitly note the removal of any expiration
> date in the discussion of this policy?
>

I was the author of that revision and the author or this one. That was
based on a belief in 2011 that ARIN would have been long out of v4
addresses and v6 adoption would be well underway. Expiry in retrospect
seems unnecessary since dual stacking is likely to prevail in CI for quite
some time to come. As it should.


> - There was discussion of smaller and larger than /24 IXP allocations,
> like /26 on the smaller side and that some very large IXPs are starting to
> need as large as a /22.  Also discussed was, sparse allocation for IXPs to
> allow expansion without renumbering.  Should this policy includes any
> changes along these lines?  Why or why not?
>

There's nothing that codifies that an CI prefix can not be routed so
linkage to the minimum allocation makes sense.



>
> - Should we try to get this to the PPC at NANOG 63 in San Antonio as a
> Recommended Draft Policy?  Or should it wait go to the PPM at ARIN 35 in
> San Francisco as a Recommended Draft Policy?  What about ARIN free pool
> run-out timing?
>

Speaking as an Open-IX community (board) member http://www.open-ix.org/ and
referencing previous discussions here that pointed there as well, there is
a substantial and demonstrated amount of support for this.

San Antonio.



>
> Do you support the policy as written, if not are there any changes that
> could be made that would allow you to support the policy?
>
>
As written.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141223/4b2ad7f5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list