[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Fri Feb 7 08:21:04 EST 2014


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
> after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
> a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
> difficult for some IXPs to get going.
>

Agreed, and I would favor the 3 participant rule against the 2 participant
rule.   It would be hard indeed, to start an Exchange later; if all the
reserved resources were allocated to  2-participant "exchanges".
The burden should not be obscenely high, for a new Exchange to sign up at
least 3 participants.

As I see it:  ARIN's job after exhaustion, is to try to allocate IP address
resources required today,  not to facilitate the anticipated expansion via
IXPs  that would today be just expensive two-member peering arrangements
structured as a 2 member IXP in order to qualify for some extra /22 or so.


My other observation is:   An Exchange with only two current participants
is not really an Exchange,  but a private peering -- regardless of the
theory of possible additional participants in the future.

While it is ARIN policy not to recover addresses solely due to lack of use,
 PERHAPS   it should be different for IXP  and critical
infrastructure/immediate need  microallocations  under 4.4,   or 4.10.

E.g.   Required notification when the number of verifiable
actively-interconnected Exchange participants drops below 2,

Or, when some or all of the microallocation is no longer being used in the
manner that justified its allocation for Critical Infrastructure:

With possible  required return and renumber requirement  solely due to
non-use.


Thanks.
>
--
-JH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140207/b6cce90b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list