<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:31 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">
There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool. Also, there seems to be a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more difficult for some IXPs to get going.<br>
</blockquote><div> </div><div>Agreed, and I would favor the 3 participant rule against the 2 participant rule. It would be hard indeed, to start an Exchange later; if all the reserved resources were allocated to 2-participant "exchanges".</div>
<div>The burden should not be obscenely high, for a new Exchange to sign up at least 3 participants.<br></div><div><br></div><div>As I see it: ARIN's job after exhaustion, is to try to allocate IP address resources required today, not to facilitate the anticipated expansion via IXPs that would today be just expensive two-member peering arrangements structured as a 2 member IXP in order to qualify for some extra /22 or so.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My other observation is: An Exchange with only two current participants is not really an Exchange, but a private peering -- regardless of the theory of possible additional participants in the future.</div>
<div><br></div><div>While it is ARIN policy not to recover addresses solely due to lack of use, PERHAPS it should be different for IXP and critical infrastructure/immediate need microallocations under 4.4, or 4.10.</div>
<div><br></div><div>E.g. Required notification when the number of verifiable actively-interconnected Exchange participants drops below 2, </div><div><br></div><div>Or, when some or all of the microallocation is no longer being used in the manner that justified its allocation for Critical Infrastructure:</div>
<div><br></div><div>With possible required return and renumber requirement solely due to non-use.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks.<div class="im"></div></blockquote></div>--</div><div class="gmail_extra">-JH</div></div>