[arin-ppml] v4 vs. v6 micro allocations justifications

[Martin Hannigan]

- 4.4. Micro-allocation
Defines the minimum participant count as "three"
- 6.10.1. Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure
Defines the minimum participants count justification as "two"

How'd that happen? I can't seem to pin down a draft to see.

As I researched this, however, I again saw widely and was reminded of the
below.

Here's what we have justification wise in both:

Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation,
including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two
total), ASN, and contact information.

Here's what we see a lot as a result (which is not in the spirit of the
policy):

Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 1: Spaghetti-IX Route Server ASN 65536
Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 2: Spaghetti-IX Route Server ASN 65537
Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 1: CedgeoEonnecto (BOS)

Here's what I suggest would be meaningful:

Exchange point operators must justify the allocation by providing the
location of the switch, the contact information information and public ASN
of the initial connecting parties. The initial connecting pirates must be
unique and independent from each other.

Which should result in:

Meatball-IX Justification Peer 1: Unique Network ASN 65536
Meatball-IX Justification Peer 2: Unique Network ASN 65537
Meatball-IX Justification Peer 1: Unique Network ASN 65538

That would prevent quite a bit of cruft IMHO.

FYI,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231205/2cd31684/attachment.htm>