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

[Tyler O'Meara]

I am OK with 4.4 space being routed as long as it is used solely for operational
purposes directly related to the IX in question. Looking Glasses, Peering
Manager, the IX's website, mail server, etc would all be acceptable in my
opinion.

Purposes not directly related to the operation of the IX itself (as opposed to
the organization running the IX) should not be valid uses for 4.4 space in my
opinion. It's worth reminding people that, although many IXes are dedicated
legal entities, there's no requirement that that be the case (and indeed, many
IXes are also organizations that do plenty of other things).

I am hesitant about the fact that this may result in every IX requesting 2 /24s.
Maybe we should consider a larger number of participants before an IX is
eligible for a routed 4.4 /24?

Tyler

On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 15:04 -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> As the policy shepherd, I’ll mention that the current silence on this creates
> ambiguity for ARIN staff, and clarity is needed.
> 
> The current proposal contains the following language: “Allocated addresses may
> … be used to operate *all* of the Internet Exchange’s infrastructure”. This
> implies the IXP’s public website, route servers/looking glasses, customer
> portals, and other corporate infrastructure may be numbered out of the 4.4
> allocation. Is that the authors’ intent? If so, is the community in support?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Chris
> 
> > On Feb 24, 2025, at 13:38, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 7:45 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Regarding the Internet Exchange allocations I normally don't see a big
> > > problem with routing part of the space that is used for other things other
> > > than the LAN (for example for User Portal, Looking Glass hosting, etc),
> > > but here comes a dilemma.
> > > Imagine the RIR have to assign an exclusive /24 for a new smaller IXP and
> > > they will have usage for only 4 or 5 IP addresses for hosting its basic
> > > stuff. That would be a major waste. And another /24 for the LAN which is
> > > fine. So an IXP would always consume a /23 while 50% is known to be
> > > probably wasted, unless properly justified.
> > 
> > Hi Fernando,
> > 
> > As I understand it, ARIN's implementation of section 4.4 doesn't treat
> > the marketing and business sides of the IXP as qualified for a
> > microallocation. I haven't explicitly asked staff, but it's kinda
> > implicit in the routing restriction reported in the PER.
> > 
> > The 2024-5 draft is mute on that subject, so I expect the resulting
> > implementation would retain the understanding that the
> > business/marketing side of the IXP does not qualify for 4.4 addresses.
> > 
> > What's the desired outcome? Should IXPs get preference for the
> > business components which don't need to be part of the peering LAN?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > William Herrin
> > bill at herrin.us
> > https://bill.herrin.us/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.