[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

[Martin Hannigan]

Here's what is says:

Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two
total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other organizations
receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the ISP fee
schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for
end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from
requesting address space under other policies.

Here's what I think it should say:

Internet Exchange Point operators must provide justification for the
allocation. Required information includes location of the IXP, a minimum of
three verified participants including their ASNs and contact information.

I'm not sure the fee language is sensible. It might be easier to say simply
"IXP's organized as non profits will be considered end user organizations.

Best,

-M<




On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:15 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> 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
> ================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140109/95a4093f/attachment.htm>