[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

Michael Richardson mcr at sandelman.ca
Fri Jan 10 10:23:38 EST 2014

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, but an IPv6 micro-allocation can acquired for free if any
of the parties have an existing RSA.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list