[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

[David Farmer]

On 9/30/14, 18:12 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> - increase the reserve pool to a /15
>> - increase the minimum allocation for an IXP to a /22
>
> Quadrupling the allocation while doubling the pool halves the number of IXPs served, and I think it would be unfortunate and short-sighted to let that happen.
...
> Today, three years later, there are six IXPs with more than 255 participants. So the portion of IXPs with more than 255 participants is holding steady at 1.5%.  In 2011, there were no IXPs with more than 512 participants, and today, there’s one such, but it took sixteen years to get to that point.
>
> There’s a case to be made that a /24 will serve 98.5% of the IXP population, and that we shouldn’t be making policy tailored for the one quarter of one percent of the IXP population that needs a /22.  On the other hand, IXPs will grow.  I think caution dictates reserving a larger pool, but I don’t know that it makes sense to give _everyone_ allocations that meet their best-case sixteen-year growth projections.
>
> I support doubling the size of the reserved pool to a /15, but I don’t think increasing the initial allocation size beyond a /24 is warranted yet.  I think sparse allocation is a sensible policy.  We can be reasonably certain that there will be at least 512 more IXPs before people stop caring about IPv4, but it’s far from a sure bet that _any_ of those would grow beyond a /23 in that time.
>
>                                  -Bill

Earlier this year we had a bit of a debate that boiled down to 2 or 3 
participants to to qualify for an IX /24.

I'd be willing to consider relaxed allocation guidelines for IXes, 
making it easier for larger and growing IXes to get larger than a /24 IX 
allocation for IPv4.  But, the idea of 3 participants qualifying you for 
/22 wouldn't fly in my book.  For IXes we can probably be more generous 
and not require an 80% or even a 50% guideline, but anything less then a 
25% guideline seems irrationally optimistic for IX growth and difficult 
to justify given IPv4 run-out.

So with a 25% guideline that would be 64 participants to qualify for a 
IX /23 and 128 participants for a IX /22, that would seem very generous 
and not burdensome for IXes.



-- 
================================================
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
================================================