On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:58 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/10/14, 09:23 , Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >> Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> 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 parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch, rather than just >> do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if two don't count. >> Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28 around, and >> renumbering >> for two parties isn't that hard. >> >> I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server would count) for >> IPv4 >> micro-allocation, >> > > I think I like this idea. > It's interesting, but you're introducing a new barrier. Capital. Some are already encumbered by bad advice and capital constraints. By upping the number a digit you actually increase their likelihood and getting an ROI on their capital. Adding a route server is a good idea, but without the third, it's a waste of capital IMHO and a new barrier. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ 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.
