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

[Brandon Ross]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, 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?

It is if it's open to more participants at any time.

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

Not necessarily, a private peering would almost always be implemented very 
differently than an IX.

> I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from 
> the public free pool, for two participants.

The value of more potential IXs becoming available to the public far 
outweighs the tiny bit of IPv4 space that this proposal might consume.

Clearly I'm against raising the requirement.

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
                                                          Skype:  brandonross
Schedule a meeting:  http://www.doodle.com/bross