[arin-ppml] Micro-allocation policy proposal draft

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Tue Sep 30 19:12:11 EDT 2014

> - 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:


That graph is from 2011, when there were five IXPs with more than 255 participants.  


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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140930/b3e323fa/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list