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

John Springer springer at inlandnet.com
Thu Feb 6 12:26:35 EST 2014

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

> Thanks.
> -- 
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> 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
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list