[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

[Owen DeLong]

A more rational threshold for that measurement would be 248 or even 240 participants.

Consider most IXPs have at least a couple of route servers (2 IPs) and likely need some numbers for the physical infrastructure of the IXP. Additionally, there are only 254 usable IP addresses in a /24, and having a 100% full IXP is, IMHO, indicative of an IXP that needs more space.

I'm fine with doubling the size of the pool. I have no problem with IXPs receiving /22s or any other size prefix they need for their operations. I do have a problem with the idea that the minimum prefix for all IXPs should be /22. That's just absurd.

Owen

On Sep 30, 2014, at 16:12 , Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 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.
> 
> To inject some facts into the debate:
> 
> http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology/internet-traffic-exchange_5k918gpt130q-en#page78
> 
> That graph is from 2011, when there were five IXPs with more than 255 participants.  
> 
> https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/?new=1&show_inactive=1&sort=Participants&order=desc
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.