[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Mar 11 15:05:55 EDT 2014
On 3/10/14, 23:13 , Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Andrew Dul wrote:
>> Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
>> to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
> An off-list conversation helped me clarify my concern about raising the
> requirement. It's not just the burden of renumbering alone that's the
> problem, it's the chilling effect it has on the market. It's already
> hard enough to get a new IX started. Adding on to that with the
> knowledge that you are unable to get permanent IP space when you start
> only adds to the problem.
What if we changed the standard from "other participants (minimum of two
total)",to "other participants (minimum written commitment from three
separate participants to connect within 6 months)."
The point being if you can't get a commitment in writing from three
participants to connect within 6 month the probability of you having a
viable and sustainable IX is pretty low to nonexistent.
So, I support raising the number of participants to 3, but lowering the
standard to a written commitment to connect within 6 months.
This even solves the chicken and egg problem with the current policy,
which implies you have two connected parties even before you are
eligible to receive an allocation. With the new language, you need
three parties willing to make a written commitment to connect within 6
months. Which means you can get the IX allocation before anyone
connects. And, even if one participant drops out, you would have some
time to find another participant before you are out of compliance.
What do people think of that concept?
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML