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

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 13:11:41 EDT 2014


Re: >>>Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one
else >>>participates?

Surely you can have private peering with 3 participants or 5 participants
if you wish?
I dont see how you can decide simply based on the number of participants
there has to be more in the motar.

RD


>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:50:58 +0000
> From: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 0a4fbb7a1d404f88b078468abe9d1f0d at DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I support 2014-7's requirement to raise the number of participants
> required to obtain an IXP micro-allocation.  3 may be too low, but it's
> better than 2.
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Dul
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:38 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
> Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
>
> The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.
>
> Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
> to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7
> > Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update
> >
> > Date: 4 March 2014
> >
> > Problem Statement:
> >
> > Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private
> > peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation
> > with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in
> > North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that
> > micro-allocation space is not wasted.
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:
> >
> > Exchange point operators must provide justification for the
> > allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants
> > (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information.
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Exchange point operators must provide justification for the
> > allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants
> > (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information.
> >
> > Comments:
> > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else:
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:57:57 -0700
> From: Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID: <531DE105.70003 at linuxmagic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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.
>
> On 14-03-10 08:37 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> > The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.
> >
> > Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
> > to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> > On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7
> >> Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update
> >>
> >> Date: 4 March 2014
> >>
> >> Problem Statement:
> >>
> >> Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private
> >> peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation
> >> with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in
> >> North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that
> >> micro-allocation space is not wasted.
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:
> >>
> >> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the
> >> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants
> >> (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information.
> >>
> >> To:
> >>
> >> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the
> >> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants
> >> (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information.
> >>
> >> Comments:
> >> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> >> b.Anything else:
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:05:03 +0000
> From: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> To: 'Michael Peddemors' <michael at linuxmagic.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
>         <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID:
>         <
> dfb6bb58dfc14d1d93ce0a13ec99c51f at DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:24:09 -0700
> From: Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID: <531DE729.3060508 at linuxmagic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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..
>
>
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:44:50 -0700
> From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> To: Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID: <9C7BCF42-A42A-469E-90B0-25C51AAA4F23 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
>
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:54:08 -0400
> From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAMDXq5NipM0zoB2QoZe9MT705aPOx9C2ZOe-XbUoMsixUicY5g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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<
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:57:55 -0700
> From: Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
> To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>,       Scott Leibrand
>         <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro
>         Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
> Message-ID: <531DEF13.3020000 at linuxmagic.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 14-03-10 09:54 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >>> 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<
>
> If the outside argument I mentioned is not something that would make
> anyone reconsider, then it might as well be more than 3..
>
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
> Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>
> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 105, Issue 16
> ******************************************
>



-- 

Rudi Daniel

*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140310/6d3a28e1/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list