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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 1:30 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:56 PM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 4.4.1 Internet Exchange Allocations
>>
>> Internet Exchange operators must justify their need by providing a
>> minimum of three initial participants not under common control connected to
>> a shared, physical switching fabric to be used for the purpose of the
>> exchange of data destined for and between the
>>
> respective networks. This justification must include participant names,
>> ASNs and contact information for each named participant. The applicant’s
>> Internet Exchange affiliated ASNs are not eligible to be included in
>> meeting the participant requirement.
>>
>>
Another important abuse tool which, for a yet unexplained reason, seems to
have been removed. In the original proposal the authors suggested a way for
ARIN to be able to 'dig deeper' if they chose to and included this:

"Staff can reasonably validate hardware and participants intent"

The expectation is if ARIN staff were still concerned about the veracity of
an application for resources they could always ask for the _ARIN region_
datacenter where the exchange point was being hosted to simply prove it. An
email from the DC or a copy of a colo agreement, much like we do with
asking applicants to prove dual homing, would be reasonable and sufficient.

To be clear in case, that was also to close the virtual internet exchange
and pretend IX hole. Ensuring there's a physical switch and a data center
location in the region ensures privileged resources aren't wasted. For
these folks, v6 is an entirely reasonable alternative through normal
channels.

What was the problem with that language(s)?

Thanks,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250308/8c87fa28/attachment.htm>