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

Mon Apr 22 18:49:19 EDT 2024

Of course Owen, on every email I read from you I get the impression that 
if it was up to you there would be no need for RIRs and policies to 
exist or maybe to be conservative in this impression you seem to like of 
the RIRs as a simple bookeeper with no power to enforce anything, even 
what the community who develops the policies set as reasonable.

It is of course up to the RIR, has always been and hopefully will 
continue to be, to dictate certain things which some private ones keeps 
refusing to comply because take out their freedom to do what they like 
with something doesn't belong to them. Simply if something is not in 
line with a policy set by this forum it is up to the RIR to dictate 
something that may not be desired by someone. I know that it may not be 
good for certain kind of business but life is not fair in many ways. So, 
just save up from recurring to this old useless mantra.

It doesn't matter if an IXP have abused or not. What I am putting is 
there should be well defined rules on how resources can be used and not 
allow this continuous "rule-less party desire" go just because it may 
hit someone's desire to take advantage of the system.
Fernando

On 22/04/2024 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I’m not the one who is mixed up here. I know exactly what the policy 
> intent was, I was very involved in creating the policy.
>
> IXPs are meant to provide value to the peers which gather at the IXP 
> by facilitating the efficient delivery of traffic amongst participants 
> in the IXP. One way to do that is direct peering relationships through 
> the IXP fabric. However, that is not the only valid mechanism for 
> doing so. Additional services such as route servers, caches, etc. can 
> also bring value to participants and it is not the role of the RIRs to 
> dictate to IXPs which of those particular things are or are not valid 
> use of the IXPs addressing.
>
> My point is that I do not know of any IXPs currently abusing their 
> addresses for any of the purposes you stated would occur.
>
> I’m not supporting or proposing any change to current IXP related 
> policy. I’m stating that the policy is sufficient as is.
>
> You are the one arguing for a change. That change is not, IMHO, 
> supported by the record and multiple other people have commented on 
> the potential harmful effects of a change.
>
> As such, I fail to see how you can claim I am arguing for a more 
> flexible scenario. I. am arguing to preserve the status quo.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Apr 21, 2024, at 22:45, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix 
>> up things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not 
>> because something looks convenient, that is something right. When 
>> conveniences prevail over the main point we start to miss the 
>> discussion propose. What you are saying below looks more a personal 
>> preference if you were in charge of an IX to make it develop than 
>> what is the main point of the discussion how resources from a special 
>> pool should be treated.
>> IXPs are not Broadband Services Providers nor RIRs and are not meant 
>> to distribute IP space to anyone. IXPs need the IPs to build its core 
>> services in order to interconnect ASNs locally. Organizations 
>> connecting to an IXP have the ability to go directly to the RIR and 
>> get resources from there through different ways and that's how it 
>> should continue.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 22/04/2024 00:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to 
>>> deny legitimate users.
>>>
>>> I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large 
>>> portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring 
>>> significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To 
>>> the best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As 
>>> such, I think your concern here has about as much credibility as 
>>> those crying about election fraud in the US.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type of 
>>>> Internet companies over the others to have access to scarce 
>>>> resources via someone else's right (the IX) to request those 
>>>> addresses for the minimum necessary to setup an IX, not to 'give a 
>>>> hand' to third parties. It would start to distort the purpose of 
>>>> the pool.
>>>>
>>>> Content providers members are members like any other connected to 
>>>> that IX. Why make them special to use these resources if other 
>>>> members (e.g: Broadband Internet Service Providers) connected to 
>>>> that same IX cannot have the same privilege ?
>>>> They and any other IX member, regardless of their business, can get 
>>>> their own allocations with their own resources.
>>>>
>>>> Fernando
>>>>
>>>> On 19/04/2024 02:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>> I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX 
>>>>> member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani 
>>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:
>>>>>>> <clip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a similar conversation recently with someone willing to 
>>>>>> use IXP allocations to assign to content caches and on this point 
>>>>>> I think that IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the 
>>>>>> positive impact a hosted content directly connected to a IXP 
>>>>>> makes it is their business to being their own IP address not the 
>>>>>> IXP and to be fair if you think of any CDN service they all have 
>>>>>> total means to do that. Therefore IXP allocations should be used 
>>>>>> for IXP own usage, so internal Infrastructure and to connect 
>>>>>> members and things should not be mixed up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Fernando
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Matt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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 contactinfo 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.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240422/17108c1b/attachment-0001.htm>