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

[Tyler O'Meara]

What is the "massive hole in policy" that is closed by mandating the use of
Ethernet as the L2 protocol? The only concern I've seen raised in this (or the
IX definition) discussion was around Virtual IXes, but every virtual IX I know
uses Ethernet anyways. Plus, since they're virtual, even if they didn't use
Ethernet, it'd be trivial for them to add an Ethernet option just to check a
NRPM box.

On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 10:34 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:22 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > Again, I think (and if I were involved in Open-IX would argue there) that
> > their standard is over-specified and over-constrained. While 802.3z and
> > 802.3ae are very common interfaces today, I know, for example, that there
> > are at least a couple of IXPs that are considering (if not implemented) the
> > elimination of 802.3z and moved up to 802.3ae as a minimum IX connection. I
> > think the days of every IX offering 1Gpbs connections are certainly numbered
> > as 10G becomes ever cheaper to implement.
> > 
> 
> 
> I hear you. We disagree (rarely).  The benefit is we close a massive hole in
> policy and not replace one loop hole with another. There are other
> prescriptive requirements in the NRPM. Multihoming.  6.4.4. Minimum allocation
> sizes. Policies by shepherd singling out IX allocation sizes eg /26. IETF ->
> IANA global instructions. Nothing really new here. 
> 
> HTH
> 
> -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.