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

Michael Peddemors michael at linuxmagic.com
Mon Mar 10 12:24:09 EDT 2014

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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list