[arin-ppml] 4.4 Micro Allocations and IXP requirements

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 14:45:42 EST 2014

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca>wrote:

>     mcr>         If two parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch,
> rather
>     mcr> than just do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if
> two
>     mcr> don't count.  Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28
>     mcr> around, and renumbering for two parties isn't that hard.
>     mcr>         I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server
> would
>     mcr> count) for IPv4 micro-allocation,
>     david>     I think I like this idea.
> Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>     > 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.
> 1) if you are an IXP, you need that switch.
>    If it's an 8-port Linksys you got at FutureShop, I don't care.
> 2) I'm saying, you can *count* the route server, not that you have to have
> one.
>    Or, you can count the third party.
>    (A route server can be built with a PIII + quagga)

At the end of the day, you're still technically a PNI.  Bill Woodycock had
it right when he said it's easy to get a third party. I think it's a
reasonable requirement, without the extra capital requirements.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140110/70a21caa/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list