<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Forwarded this on to the North American and Canadian IXP Slack channels.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Speaking for myself<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not in support of this. The three connection minimum has worked well for years. The utilization of the pool is also pleasing. RIPE or PDB doesn’t speak for IXP operators in North America. And we deliberately don’t have a continental
association like the others so that we can stay out of the Internet governance activities and continue to operate/speak for ourselves in the unique fashion that is “Americans”. We have an informal NA-IX. Canadians too. They have an informal CA-IX. The initial
intent of the policy was when the pool exhausted, that would be it. I missed the replenishment policy or I would’ve objected. Then why would I object to this? The source data is inaccurate, probably more inaccurate than ARIN data. While IXPs generally do participate
in PDB, that doesn’t mean their customers “must”. Almost all IXPs host their own customer lists. For the smaller IXPs, spending time updating PDB may not be high on the priority list. IXPs can’t force their customers to update and vice versa. I think using
PDB data for policy is less than ideal. We’re also doing a good job of regulating ourselves. Even a few of the commercial ones.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The fee increases have caused enough impact to small IXPs do go off and innovate to avoid ARIN fees. We’ll still need routable blocks both in size and utility. There’s no rule that says an IXP prefix “MUST NOT” be routed to the Internet.
See Canadian IX and GGC cache embedded in the announced IXP prefix. If you knew what it takes to get a GGC or other CDN (this is how we all succeed) this makes sense.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interesting timing as well. There is ramp up for massive competition. As well as fees that making it expensive to start up, recently a commercial IXP has announced their intention to drown the US in IXPs. I won’t refer to it directly since
I’m not up on the latest antitrust posting guidelines. However, search engines are your friend.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’re doing a pretty good job regulating ourselves to be honest. Here’s a snapshot of work reducing cost so we can complete against the onslaught:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zFdK4BXYybEUh7Y3lir4t0ZL3Kz9R7MuiAuxwwWX0sM/edit#slide=id.p">https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zFdK4BXYybEUh7Y3lir4t0ZL3Kz9R7MuiAuxwwWX0sM/edit#slide=id.p</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to leave well enough alone. I’m not in support of this proposal.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hope that helps,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warm regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-M<</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net> on behalf of Andrew Dul <andrew.dul@quark.net><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 1:43 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>arin-ppml@arin.net <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'd also like to point out that we already have a method for refilling the IXP pool as needed. The current policy states that ARIN should maintain at least a 3 year supply for these reserved pools and so far it would also seem that the
returns to ARIN appear to be sufficient to add to the reserved pools as necessary.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-7-2-precedence-for-replenishment">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#4-1-7-2-precedence-for-replenishment</a>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/20/2023 10:10 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Speaking as the proposal author: It appears that a URL included in the draft language has been inadvertently eaten by formatting. The Statistics & Reporting link is here: <a href="https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/#ipv4-reserved-pool-status-nrpm-4-10-ipv6-deployments">https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/#ipv4-reserved-pool-status-nrpm-4-10-ipv6-deployments</a></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I’ll also note that this page appears to have been updated since the policy was originally submitted - it now appears that the NPRM 4.4 Micro-Allocation pool is 65% allocated, with 35% remaining. (There’s a good chance I was rounding down when I said 50% in the problem statement)</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Thanks,</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>-Chris</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>On Jun 20, 2023, at 08:54, ARIN <a href="mailto:info@arin.net"><info@arin.net></a> wrote:</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-320: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs” as a Draft Policy.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at:</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2</a></pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration</pre>
<pre>* Technically Sound</pre>
<pre>* Supported by the Community</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>The PDP can be found at:</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a></pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: <a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a></pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Regards,</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>Eddie Diego</pre>
<pre>Policy Analyst</pre>
<pre>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Problem Statement: </pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Per NRPM Section 4.4, ARIN has reserved a /15 for micro-allocations for critical internet infrastructure, such as internet exchange points (IXPs) and core DNS service providers. The majority of these allocation requests are made by IXPs. As of the last ARIN report, roughly half of this reservation is allocated (see Statistics & Reporting Projections from ARIN staff suggest that at current allocation rates, the remaining reserved space may be exhausted in the next few years.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In parallel, an analysis of PeeringDB data conducted by the RIPE Address Policy Working Group shows that approximately 70% of global IXPs have fewer than 32 members registered with that site. An IXP this size could readily operate with a /26 allocation, which would provide 100% overprovisioning beyond their existing peer count. (Source: <a href="https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg">https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg</a> )</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Unlike other types of allocations, IXP peering networks are not required by member networks to be globally reachable; only members of the IXP must be able to reach the prefix. As such, there is no technical requirement that an IXP allocation must be no smaller than a /24.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Policy statement:</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Existing text:</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>4.4. Micro-allocation</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a /24. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Replace with:</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>4.4 Micro-allocation</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public internet exchange points (IXPs), core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no smaller than a /26 for IXPs, or a /24 for other allocations that require global reachability of the assigned allocation. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>4.4.1 Micro-allocations for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>An IXP requesting an initial IPv4 allocation from this reserved space will be assigned a /26 by default. An IXP requesting an allocation larger than a /26 must show an immediate need to utilize more than 25% of the requested allocation size upon initial commissioning.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>An IXP requesting an allocation under this section must have also requested, or already received, an IPv6 allocation for the same purpose under Section 6.10.1.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>An allocation made to an IXP under this section may only be used for the operation of its public peering LAN. No other uses are allowed.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>An IXP that has received an IPv4 allocation under this section may request a larger allocation once they have utilized more than 50% of their existing one. Upon receiving the larger allocation, the IXP must migrate to the new allocation and return their previous one to ARIN within 6 months.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Comments:</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>This proposal mirrors RIPE policy proposal 2023-01 (see <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01</a>) which is currently under consideration in that region and appears to have sufficient community support for adoption at the time of this writing.</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Timetable for implementation: Immediate</pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>ARIN-PPML</pre>
<pre>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</pre>
<pre>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</pre>
<pre>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</pre>
<pre><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></pre>
<pre>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>ARIN-PPML</pre>
<pre>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</pre>
<pre>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</pre>
<pre>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</pre>
<pre><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></pre>
<pre>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>