<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:01 PM, David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 1/10/14, 13:45 , Martin Hannigan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
At the end of the day, you're still technically a PNI. Bill Woodycock<br>
had it right when he said it's easy to get a third party. I think it's a<br>
reasonable requirement, without the extra capital requirements.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I think you are miss-paraphrasing Bill. I think Bill was making the point once a couple networks peer with each other at an exchange frequently others follow quickly behind. But it sometimes takes the first two too break the ice, before you will get the other networks to follow. In some cases it maybe a road block to get the first three participants to peer to qualify for a IXP block.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think I'm taking his comment out of character at all, but that's fine.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think I agree with you that a third participant is probably a lower barrier in most cases, than a route server. But, I think two participants and a route server shows a clear intent to be an exchange and is differentiable from a PNI. The intent wasn't meant as a requirement for a route server, but an option, not all exchange points have the same circumstances. We are looking for what the minimum is to justify an exchange point.<br>
</blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">I'd rather see the third participant be a committed party. Traffic is more valuable measurement. Putting two networks and a route server on a switch is still the equivalent of a PNI. You can still have two privately interconnected parties declaring their intent to form an IXP and attract a third if they aren't completely inept. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
1. If the community prefers just three participants, I'd ok with that.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2. If the community wants to allow a route server to be one of the three participants, I'd ok with that too.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Debatable.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
3. But, I agree with you that simply two participants by themselves is insufficiently differentiable from PNI.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would argue the same including the route server since it is not required to operate the exchange. Happy to discuss.<br>
<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And, someone else made the point that this wouldn't extend the free pool for any amount of time. That is true, but that's not the intent of this. The intent is to ensure that the CI reservations that should be available will beyond the free pool are actually only use for their intended purpose. And that there are </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Exactly.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">not loopholes left open for abuse of these special reservation. To date I believe the other requirements were sufficient to discourage abuse. However, that may not be true when all we have are these special reservation.</blockquote>
<div><br><br>+1<br><br><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br><br>-M<<br><br><br><br><br></div></div></div></div>