[arin-ppml] ARIN-2024-5 Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation - Community Questions

[Scott Leibrand]

In the case of an IXP, the router configs in question are of third parties
engaging in peering over the purported IXP. If ARIN wants to require IXP
participant attestation that an IXP is real and really using the IP space
in question in order to allow routing of the IP space, they certainly
could. If they don't want to have to do that, and don't have a problem with
the current routing limitation, I'm fine with that as well.

-Scott

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:39 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I agree that routed IXP space that’s actually being used solely for the
> IXP itself (easy enough to demonstrate with router configs), and not for
> some other purpose, is probably fine.
>
> > On Feb 22, 2025, at 10:02 AM, Christopher Malayter <
> mustang at terahertz.net> wrote:
> > I support allowing the space to be routed.
>
> Hi Scott, Chris:
>
> Any thoughts on controlling fraud? That's an operational problem of
> course, not something that goes in the policy, but it is a problem
> ARIN staff will have to solve in their implementation of the policy.
> The NRPM 4.10 address pool has been a target of fraud in the past, but
> with the routing limitation the 4.4 pool has not. Needless to say,
> router configs are trivially forged.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250224/fd7176ce/attachment.htm>