[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:58 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 1/10/14, 09:23 , Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>> Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> 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 parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch, rather than just
>> do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if two don't count.
>> Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28 around, and
>> renumbering
>> for two parties isn't that hard.
>>
>> I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server would count) for
>> IPv4
>> micro-allocation,
>>
>
> I think I like this idea.
>


It's interesting, but you're introducing a new barrier. Capital. Some are
already encumbered by bad advice and capital constraints. By upping the
number a digit you actually increase their likelihood and getting an ROI on
their capital.

Adding a route server is a good idea, but without the third, it's a waste
of capital IMHO and a new barrier.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140110/278a8de8/attachment.htm>