<div dir="ltr">Re: >>>Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else >>>participates?<div><br></div><div>Surely you can have private peering with 3 participants or 5 participants if you wish?</div>
<div>I dont see how you can decide simply based on the number of participants there has to be more in the motar.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra">RD<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:50:58 +0000<br>
From: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:0a4fbb7a1d404f88b078468abe9d1f0d@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com">0a4fbb7a1d404f88b078468abe9d1f0d@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I support 2014-7's requirement to raise the number of participants required to obtain an IXP micro-allocation. 3 may be too low, but it's better than 2.<br>
<br>
David R Huberman<br>
Microsoft Corporation<br>
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul<br>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:38 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
<br>
The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.<br>
<br>
Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7<br>
> Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update<br>
><br>
> Date: 4 March 2014<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private<br>
> peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation<br>
> with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in<br>
> North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that<br>
> micro-allocation space is not wasted.<br>
><br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:<br>
><br>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the<br>
> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants<br>
> (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information.<br>
><br>
> To:<br>
><br>
> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the<br>
> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants<br>
> (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information.<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else:<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN<br>
> Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto: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="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto: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="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:57:57 -0700<br>
From: Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:531DE105.70003@linuxmagic.com">531DE105.70003@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for<br>
smaller players. More information might be needed to determine adverse<br>
cases, or possibly some exemption for rural players that might not be<br>
able to attain a 3rd participant.<br>
<br>
On 14-03-10 08:37 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:<br>
> The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.<br>
><br>
> Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required<br>
> to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
> On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7<br>
>> Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update<br>
>><br>
>> Date: 4 March 2014<br>
>><br>
>> Problem Statement:<br>
>><br>
>> Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private<br>
>> peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation<br>
>> with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in<br>
>> North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that<br>
>> micro-allocation space is not wasted.<br>
>><br>
>> Policy statement:<br>
>><br>
>> Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from:<br>
>><br>
>> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the<br>
>> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants<br>
>> (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information.<br>
>><br>
>> To:<br>
>><br>
>> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the<br>
>> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants<br>
>> (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information.<br>
>><br>
>> Comments:<br>
>> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate<br>
>> b.Anything else:<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto: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="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto: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="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.<br>
Visit us at <a href="http://www.linuxmagic.com" target="_blank">http://www.linuxmagic.com</a> @linuxmagic<br>
Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info <a href="http://www.wizard.ca" target="_blank">http://www.wizard.ca</a><br>
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<a href="tel:604-682-0300" value="+16046820300">604-682-0300</a> Beautiful British Columbia, Canada<br>
<br>
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended<br>
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.<br>
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely<br>
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:05:03 +0000<br>
From: David Huberman <<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>><br>
To: 'Michael Peddemors' <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:dfb6bb58dfc14d1d93ce0a13ec99c51f@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com">dfb6bb58dfc14d1d93ce0a13ec99c51f@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Michael Peddemors wrote:<br>
<br>
> While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller players.<br>
> More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some<br>
> exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd participant.<br>
<br>
Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:24:09 -0700<br>
From: Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:531DE729.3060508@linuxmagic.com">531DE729.3060508@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote:<br>
> Michael Peddemors wrote:<br>
><br>
>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller players.<br>
>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some<br>
>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd participant.<br>
> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.<br>
<br>
Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this<br>
in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available.<br>
<br>
Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see<br>
for not increasing it to three or more..<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.<br>
Visit us at <a href="http://www.linuxmagic.com" target="_blank">http://www.linuxmagic.com</a> @linuxmagic<br>
Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info <a href="http://www.wizard.ca" target="_blank">http://www.wizard.ca</a><br>
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<a href="tel:604-682-0300" value="+16046820300">604-682-0300</a> Beautiful British Columbia, Canada<br>
<br>
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended<br>
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.<br>
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely<br>
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:44:50 -0700<br>
From: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:9C7BCF42-A42A-469E-90B0-25C51AAA4F23@gmail.com">9C7BCF42-A42A-469E-90B0-25C51AAA4F23@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote:<br>
>> Michael Peddemors wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller players.<br>
>>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some<br>
>>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd participant.<br>
>> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.<br>
><br>
> Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available.<br>
><br>
> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for not increasing it to three or more..<br>
<br>
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?<br>
<br>
Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3.<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:54:08 -0400<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAMDXq5NipM0zoB2QoZe9MT705aPOx9C2ZOe-XbUoMsixUicY5g@mail.gmail.com">CAMDXq5NipM0zoB2QoZe9MT705aPOx9C2ZOe-XbUoMsixUicY5g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand<br>
<<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote:<br>
>>> Michael Peddemors wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller players.<br>
>>>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some<br>
>>>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd participant.<br>
>>> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.<br>
>><br>
>> Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available.<br>
>><br>
>> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for not increasing it to three or more..<br>
><br>
> Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?<br>
><br>
> Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
Would you entertain more than 3?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-M<<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:57:55 -0700<br>
From: Michael Peddemors <<a href="mailto:michael@linuxmagic.com">michael@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
To: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>>, Scott Leibrand<br>
<<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro<br>
Allocation Conservation Update - Revised<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:531DEF13.3020000@linuxmagic.com">531DEF13.3020000@linuxmagic.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
On 14-03-10 09:54 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:<br>
>>> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for not increasing it to three or more..<br>
>> ><br>
>> >Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?<br>
>> ><br>
>> >Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3.<br>
>> ><br>
><br>
> Would you entertain more than 3?<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> -M<<br>
<br>
If the outside argument I mentioned is not something that would make<br>
anyone reconsider, then it might as well be more than 3..<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.<br>
Visit us at <a href="http://www.linuxmagic.com" target="_blank">http://www.linuxmagic.com</a> @linuxmagic<br>
Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info <a href="http://www.wizard.ca" target="_blank">http://www.wizard.ca</a><br>
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<a href="tel:604-682-0300" value="+16046820300">604-682-0300</a> Beautiful British Columbia, Canada<br>
<br>
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended<br>
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.<br>
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely<br>
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 105, Issue 16<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><img src="http://api.ning.com/files/60Dc*7fMSnOD5inYWvnElhieb2y*e2O798iHVa48vgYOJUmz33g1MSmWAGQs0M2C7g4LXqAu0KvJ0c99k3kSouZfig33AnNo/emaillogo.jpg" height="61" width="58"><br>
<div>Rudi Daniel<div><i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">danielcharles consulting</a><br></i><b><span style="font-size:large"><font color="#006600"><br>
</font></span></b></div><div><font color="#006600"><span style="font-size:large"><b><br></b></span></font><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>