[arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

[Matt Peterson]

We (SFMIX) also agree with Ryan comments, +1.

While the actual IXP member LAN prefixes are not announced globally, often
IXP's will operate support infrastructure - such as monitoring, route
debugging (looking glass), and related compute infrastructure. Those
resources need to be accessible to a global operational community.

If we're going to revisit the IXP pool, solving actual operational problems
might be useful. For example, offering an allocation scheme that allows for
an IXP to expand easily from a /24 to /23. Renumbering events span years
for IXP's and this is a very painful process. It appears
that the spare allocation scheme has been a bit on again, off again.

If the policy needs revision *(John's comments did not provide enough of a
background story - it's unclear if this a yet another IPv4 land grab
approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content caches, and/or the
historical industry acceptable usage that Ryan shares), *maybe consider
micro-allocations for IXP usage as unannounced prefixes and for routed
prefixes, an IXP applies under NRPM 4.3 *(end user assignments). *

--Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240418/44a46cfe/attachment.htm>