[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised

[Scott Leibrand]

> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote:
>> Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> 
>>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller players.
>>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some
>>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd participant.
>> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.
> 
> Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available.
> 
> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for not increasing it to three or more..

Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?

Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3. 

Scott