<div><br></div>I'm the author of this proposal as well as supporting it. <div><br></div><div>I don't have an objection to removing fee related language (which was already there) as long as ARIN isn't classifying exchanges as ISP's. They aren't. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I find the below comment re allocation size is "interesting", but not related to this proposal. </div><div><br></div><div>JS is correct, the Open-IX <span></span>community did discuss and agree that three makes an IXP. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Best, </div><div><br></div><div>Marty</div><div><br><br>On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Michael Still <<a href="mailto:stillwaxin@gmail.com">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'springer@inlandnet.com')">springer@inlandnet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Comments inline.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hello,<br>
>>><br>
>>> This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in<br>
>>> addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you<br>
>>> could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> Andrew<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from<br>
>>> 2 to 3?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant<br>
>> standard to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).<br>
>><br>
>> To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for<br>
>> an IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also<br>
>> extremely low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4<br>
>> free pool the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the<br>
>> standard to three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent<br>
>> precaution to ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical<br>
>> infrastructure that was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure<br>
>> availability of resources for legitimate IXPs in the future.<br>
>><br>
>> There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is<br>
>> unfortunate. However, the three participant standard is not completely<br>
>> unreasonable, given the potential for increased abuse of the two participant<br>
>> standard.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject. Perhaps<br>
> the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on this<br>
> specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as the way<br>
> forward. I am OK with that.<br>
><br>
><br>
>>> Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define<br>
>>> if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue<br>
>> should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. I<br>
>> have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments<br>
>> section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept it<br>
>> represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.<br>
><br>
><br>
> many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a<br>
> direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not<br>
> support the draft policy as written.<br>
><br>
> John Springer<br>
><br>
<br>
Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the thread..<br>
<br>
Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number<br>
resources issues in a different perspective. Have we considered<br>
updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in<br>
the first place? What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue<br>
a /24? What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be<br>
more than 126 participants? Or worse much less? Should these IXPs be<br>
given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed?<br>
Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation<br>
increases they be issued new space to move into?<br>
<br>
I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has<br>
been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and<br>
should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24<br>
I believe.<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> ================================================<br>
>> David Farmer Email: <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'farmer@umn.edu')">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
>> Office of Information Technology<br>
>> University of Minnesota<br>
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815<br>
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952<br>
>> ================================================<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'ARIN-PPML@arin.net')">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'info@arin.net')">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'ARIN-PPML@arin.net')">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'info@arin.net')">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
[<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'stillwaxin@gmail.com')">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a> ~]$ cat .signature<br>
cat: .signature: No such file or directory<br>
[<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'stillwaxin@gmail.com')">stillwaxin@gmail.com</a> ~]$<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'ARIN-PPML@arin.net')">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'info@arin.net')">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div>