[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update
stillwaxin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 14:45:12 EST 2014
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:
> Comments inline.
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 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
> 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
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
[stillwaxin at gmail.com ~]$ cat .signature
cat: .signature: No such file or directory
[stillwaxin at gmail.com ~]$
More information about the ARIN-PPML