[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

[Martin Hannigan]

I'm the author of this proposal as well as supporting it.

I don't have an objection to removing fee related language (which was
already there) as long as ARIN isn't classifying exchanges as ISP's. They
aren't.

I find the below comment re allocation size is "interesting", but not
related to this proposal.

JS is correct, the Open-IX community did discuss and agree that three makes
an IXP.

Best,

Marty


On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Michael Still <stillwaxin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Comments inline.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in
> >>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML.  Specifically if
> you
> >>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Andrew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs
> from
> >>> 2 to 3?
> >>
> >>
> >> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant
> >> standard to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).
> >>
> >> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for
> >> an IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also
> >> extremely low.  However, as we proceed through run-out of the general
> IPv4
> >> free pool the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising
> the
> >> standard to three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent
> >> precaution to ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical
> >> infrastructure that was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure
> >> availability of resources for legitimate IXPs in the future.
> >>
> >> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is
> >> unfortunate. However, the three participant standard is not completely
> >> unreasonable, given the potential for increased abuse of the two
> participant
> >> standard.
> >
> >
> > The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.
> Perhaps
> > the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on this
> > specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as the
> way
> > forward. I am OK with that.
> >
> >
> >>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
> >>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this
> issue
> >> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue.
>  I
> >> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the
> comments
> >> section, outside the policy text itself.  I support the general concept
> it
> >> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.
> >
> >
> > many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is
> a
> > direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
> > support the draft policy as written.
> >
> > John Springer
> >
>
> Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the
> thread..
>
> Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number
> resources issues in a different perspective.  Have we considered
> updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in
> the first place?  What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue
> a /24?  What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be
> more than 126 participants?  Or worse much less?  Should these IXPs be
> given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed?
> Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation
> increases they be issued new space to move into?
>
> I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has
> been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and
> should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24
> I believe.
>
> >
> >
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ================================================
> >> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu <javascript:;>
> >> Office of Information Technology
> >> University of Minnesota
> >> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> >> ================================================
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>
> ).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any
> issues.
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any
> issues.
>
>
>
> --
> [stillwaxin at gmail.com <javascript:;> ~]$ cat .signature
> cat: .signature: No such file or directory
> [stillwaxin at gmail.com <javascript:;> ~]$
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140206/30928be0/attachment.htm>