Right, and a much smaller block. I think I also agree re: v6.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:15 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/9/14, 15:41 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> >> Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can receive >> an allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in >> the industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three >> on a common switch "could" be an IXP. >> >> Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of >> prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool? If >> two is arbitrarily low, it's a good time to make three arbitrarily low. >> I think it would be wise in terms of insuring that resources are being >> used effectively. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > I'd add that if there are only two it seems reasonable that one of the two > participants can provide the address block, when there is three or more > that much more reasonably meets the definition of an IXP and better > justifies allocation of addresses independent of any of the participants. > > Further, the same change should be considered to for IPv6 in 6.10.1. > Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure. I think it would be a bad > idea to have different definitions for an IXP between IPv4 and IPv6. > > Thanks. > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: [email protected] > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
