[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

[Martin Hannigan]

That’s why, if you go back through the original policy discussion record re: IXP and infra pool(AFAIRI),  the understanding was a /15 was “it” since we compromised for a) all the new gTLD’s that came (and then which many WENT) and b) an expected (and realized) influx of new IXPs to complete with commercial IXPs. We did a good job (then) to accommodate the unknown. While prefix routability isn’t “required” it is useful. And it’s par with the rest of ARIN IPv4 inventory and policy. However, the fee is the same for a non-pool prefix. I am aware fees aren’t policy issues, but they certainly should be considered when reducing benefits. The reduction is host count and usability.

The other issue in the problem statement that could use help from the history. I don’t believe there is a problem with IXP’s using most of the pool. The proposal seems to imply it is. The intention was to give IXPs and infra (new gTLD, ccTLD, ARIN, IANA) a fair start for growth. I believe everything worked as planned.

Question for ARIN: The IXP and infra pool appear to be split into /16’s. What the data Chris posted then says is the IXP pool is more at risk of exhaustion than the IXP pool causing  infra pool to exhaust. Thanks for clarifying!

Owen, I agree with you re: deck chairs and doing nothing here.

Warm regards,

-M<

*Get rid of the replenishment policy if you really want to stop re-arranging the deck chairs.



From: Delong.com <owen at delong.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 4:51 PM
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
Cc: andrew.dul at quark.net <andrew.dul at quark.net>, Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com>, arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs
Regardless of whether this will break anything or not, IMHO, it is yet another (futile) effort at rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs.

I see little to no benefit to the community from doing this.

The only policy goal it will advance is that of creating the perception that IPv4 can last even longer if we just do more stupid things to it.

It’s time to move on. It’s time to deploy IPv6.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20230620/536fcc97/attachment.htm>