[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:16 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

[ clip ]


> On the switch tech l2 piece ATM etc does contradict demonstrated
> standards. And if IX tech changes, policy could be changed. If someone
> tells ARIN they’re deploying an ATM switch as an IX in 2024 it should set
> off alarm bells IMHO.
>
>
> As long as the physical switch component is kept I don't think there would
> be heartache. But hope the reasons help everyone understand the inside
> baseball.
>
>
> Well, I think requiring a switch (as opposed to some possible other
> mechanism of physical interconnection) is also unnecessarily specific, but
> I think as long as a physical interconnection infrastructure is required
> (which I believe is accomplished in my proposed language), I think we’re
> good. If you see holes in my proposed language, I’m certainly open to
> wordsmithing them.
>

Data.

Out of all IX in North America:
- none chose ATM as a media type
- 22 chose multiple types which means ethernet + ATM
   These networks did so mistakenly;  choice was confusing and FOMO, none
offer ATM or other
- 237 chose ethernet

I also don't see why transport between sites is an issue related to the
policy. We're talking about local switch fabrics which the data shows is
100% ethernet in 2024.

So why don't we, if we really need to, remove the word ethernet and be done
with it? I'd really hate to lose the clarity and plain language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240524/57773cd1/attachment-0001.htm>