<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/04/2024 19:44, Ryan Woolley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO+Ksh0-VqTkyRrbtrAYPUn3H_CEOF42U7uqNwaOYzbPedy+Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification
from the community on whether an internet exchange needs IP
space beyond that used for the switching fabric, and whether IP
allocations made to an IXP operator may need to be routable.
Additionally, John shared a suggestion that the historical basis
for maintaining a pool specific to IXPs was to enable the
building of filters to prevent those addresses from being
globally routable.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't see a problem they being routable as there may be
infrastructure like Portal, Looking Glass, internal Infrastructure
etc e and other tools that need it. In the other hand it is expected
that most of the allocation to be used for connecting members. Issue
here is where micro-allocations would be enough for the second case,
they are not for the first. Another point of attention is what would
the risk of abuse and how feasible to monitor it in order to prevent
abuse if necessary.<br>
It doesn't make total sense to me to say that a pool specific to
IXPs is intended only to build filters to prevent those addresses
from being globally routable as there are legitimate cases. Maybe
this was someone's opinion on the past and not a community
understanding that ended up being expected as such.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO+Ksh0-VqTkyRrbtrAYPUn3H_CEOF42U7uqNwaOYzbPedy+Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Community IX operates two IXPs, FL-IX in south
Florida and CIX-ATL in Atlanta. FL-IX was founded in 2015 and
now connects 158 member networks. CIX-ATL began operations in
2019 and currently connects 66 member networks.<br>
<br>
Both IXPs have been assigned IP address space from ARIN. Each
IXP uses one prefix for the member LAN, which is not announced
outside of our members’ networks, and a second, routed, prefix
for the IXP infrastructure.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Fair enough, as mentioned above. If the allocation is for allowing
to build a IX which plays a fairly important role in this ecosystem
that should be for whatever is needed and justifiable, and of course
there are means to monitor and make sure one that receives such
allocation doesn't use it otherwise.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO+Ksh0-VqTkyRrbtrAYPUn3H_CEOF42U7uqNwaOYzbPedy+Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
The routed prefix supports operations critical to the operation
of the exchange. Our member portal, network management systems,
and equipment loopback addresses are, by need and design,
addressed in routable IP space. For example, route servers
build filters based on ROAs and IRR databases, and
configurations are replicated off-site.<br>
<br>
Unlike an IXP affiliated with an ISP or data center operator, we
have no line of business which would enable us to borrow IP
space from, for example, a pool maintained for allocation to IP
transit customers. Our transit is provided as a donation by
members, who may come or go as their connectivity needs require,
so we cannot reasonably use non-provider-independent IP space.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Even an ISP that sponsors an private for profit ISP if necessary
should request allocation from this pool as the existence of an IXP,
is still relevant to the Internet ecosystem, but your case is a
prefect example of the usage of this <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO+Ksh0-VqTkyRrbtrAYPUn3H_CEOF42U7uqNwaOYzbPedy+Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On the second question of whether space reserved for IXP
allocations should be unroutable as a feature, we have not, in
our years of operation, encountered any issues with reachability
for these allocations. If networks are building filters for
this purpose, our experience suggests that is not a common
practice.<br>
<br>
IXPs do commonly have a desire to prevent their member LAN
prefix from being routable. The current best practice is that
this prefix is signed in RPKI with an origin ASN of zero (as
described in RFC 6483), and Community IX does this for both our
IXPs’ member LANs. To the extent that filtering based on IP
addressing may have been contemplated in the past, is it now
obsoleted by RPKI.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Perfect. Well done.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO+Ksh0-VqTkyRrbtrAYPUn3H_CEOF42U7uqNwaOYzbPedy+Zg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Ryan Woolley<br>
Community IX<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>