[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

[David Farmer]

On 1/9/14, 15:41 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can receive
> an allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in
> the industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three
> on a common switch "could" be an IXP.
>
> Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
> prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool? If
> two is arbitrarily low, it's a good time to make three arbitrarily low.
> I think it would be wise in terms of insuring that resources are being
> used effectively.
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable to me.

I'd add that if there are only two it seems reasonable that one of the 
two participants can provide the address block, when there is three or 
more that much more reasonably meets the definition of an IXP and better 
justifies allocation of addresses independent of any of the participants.

Further, the same change should be considered to for IPv6 in 6.10.1. 
Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure.  I think it would be a 
bad idea to have different definitions for an IXP between IPv4 and IPv6.

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
================================================