mcr> If two parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch, rather
mcr> than just do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if two
mcr> don't count. Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28
mcr> around, and renumbering for two parties isn't that hard.
mcr> I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server would
mcr> count) for IPv4 micro-allocation,
david> I think I like this idea.
Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
1) if you are an IXP, you need that switch.
If it's an 8-port Linksys you got at FutureShop, I don't care.
2) I'm saying, you can *count* the route server, not that you have to have one.
Or, you can count the third party.
(A route server can be built with a PIII + quagga)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
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.
