[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 17:17:45 EST 2014

Right, and a much smaller block. I think I also agree re: v6.

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/20140109/56d752ef/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list