[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 19:52:31 EDT 2014


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Seems entirely reasonable and uncontroversial to me.


>
> - 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
>

If we as a community think that IXP allocations are valuable enough to the
larger community to justify reserving space that would otherwise go to
operate networks, I don't have any particular objection to this.  The case
needs to be made, though.


>
> - 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.
>

I don't see the justification for this change.  Granting a /22 to all IXPs,
even if their growth plans don't indicate they're likely to need it, seems
excessive, particularly in light of sparse allocation, where the IXP can
simply grow into a large subnet by getting new participants (and those they
peer with) to change their subnet mask, without any renumbering efforts or
flag days.

IMO it'd be better to let small IXPs start with a /24 (or even smaller), so
that in the eventual future when the reserved IXP CI block is full, we can
sparse-allocate other small IXPs a /24 out of the original reserved /22 if
the original IXP still hasn't expanded.

-Scott


>
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140930/687b6d60/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list