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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

> The initial connecting pirates must be unique and independent
> from each other.

I think this part is even more important than making the number "3" 
instead of "2".

Too much game playing is being done with this section, allowing 
corporately related parties to obtain this space to connect themselves 
together without any real intent to EVER publically peer with any 
unrelated parties.  If they want to make what is a private peering point, 
they should be forced to use their own address space to do so, and not the 
IX space meant for public peering.

I would even suggest that the terms of a public offering of peering be 
made FIRST and the existance of a public offer to peer be made a condition 
to receive IX space from ARIN. This will help prevent use of this space 
only private related parties, and without any real intent to actually have 
a PUBLIC IX among actual unrelated parties.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> 
> Based on my experience, I believe three is correct. I did back when we all
> came to consensus on the v4 policy for micro allocation and do now. The
> infrastructure development impact is very important to the Internet. Making
> sure the resources are going to be used legitimately for development and not
> flag planting is also important. 
> 
> HTH,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 21:26 Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
>       Absolutely.
> I’d love to see the number be higher, like 3 or 5. If you can’t find
> more than two, are you really going to get anywhere?
> 
> -- Richard
>
>       On Dec 5, 2023, at 17:51, Martin Hannigan
>       <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>
>   - 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<
> 
> 
> 
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       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:
>       https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>       Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 
>