On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:01 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/10/14, 13:45 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> >> At the end of the day, you're still technically a PNI. Bill Woodycock >> had it right when he said it's easy to get a third party. I think it's a >> reasonable requirement, without the extra capital requirements. >> > > I think you are miss-paraphrasing Bill. I think Bill was making the point > once a couple networks peer with each other at an exchange frequently > others follow quickly behind. But it sometimes takes the first two too > break the ice, before you will get the other networks to follow. In some > cases it maybe a road block to get the first three participants to peer to > qualify for a IXP block. I don't think I'm taking his comment out of character at all, but that's fine. > I think I agree with you that a third participant is probably a lower > barrier in most cases, than a route server. But, I think two participants > and a route server shows a clear intent to be an exchange and is > differentiable from a PNI. The intent wasn't meant as a requirement for a > route server, but an option, not all exchange points have the same > circumstances. We are looking for what the minimum is to justify an > exchange point. > I'd rather see the third participant be a committed party. Traffic is more valuable measurement. Putting two networks and a route server on a switch is still the equivalent of a PNI. You can still have two privately interconnected parties declaring their intent to form an IXP and attract a third if they aren't completely inept. > 1. If the community prefers just three participants, I'd ok with that. > Yes. > > 2. If the community wants to allow a route server to be one of the three > participants, I'd ok with that too. > Debatable. > > 3. But, I agree with you that simply two participants by themselves is > insufficiently differentiable from PNI. > I would argue the same including the route server since it is not required to operate the exchange. Happy to discuss. > And, someone else made the point that this wouldn't extend the free pool > for any amount of time. That is true, but that's not the intent of this. > The intent is to ensure that the CI reservations that should be available > will beyond the free pool are actually only use for their intended purpose. > And that there are Exactly. > not loopholes left open for abuse of these special reservation. To date I > believe the other requirements were sufficient to discourage abuse. > However, that may not be true when all we have are these special > reservation. +1 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.
