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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>


Would you entertain more than 3?

Best,

-M<