[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

[Martin Hannigan]

Thanks.

The discussion in the Open-IX community seems to support a CI change
related to IXPs in the following manners:

- use sparse allocations for CI space

Helps to avoid renumbering of growing CI. We will use the suggestions
process for this.

- increase the reserve pool to a /15

Appears to be rather rapid depletion of CI pool based on the recent
acceleration of NA IXP growth related to multiple party efforts

- increase the minimum allocation for an IXP to a /22

IXPs are deploying much larger footprints from day 1 vs. growing into
multiple facilities. More avoidance of renumbering of CI.

On the renumbering issue, I do agree that this is different
considering that we have placed them in the class of CI along with the
others.

By no means have I offered exhaustive justifications for any of the
above points. Rather, points to test the waters.

YMMV,

-M<






On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In a discussion within the OIX standards community, there is support
>> for asking ARIN to sparsely allocate micro allocation space for IXPs
>> on /23. The only question is, how should we proceed? Ask ARIN directly
>> or submit a policy? The former would seem logical.
>
> Absent any reason expressed by the community to the contrary, we're
> obviously willing to make use of sparse allocation for managing these
> allocations...   I can't think of any reason offhand not to - if you
> submit as a suggestion <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html>,
> then we can put it out for a quick community consultation and absent any
> objection will proceed accordingly.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>