Comments inline.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Farmer wrote:
On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
Hello,
This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in
addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you
could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Andrew
Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from
2 to 3?
I support the change from a two participants to a three participant standard
to qualify as an Internet Exchange Point (IXP).
To date the risk created by allowing the minimum of two participates for an
IXP has been extremely low, as the motivation for abuse was also extremely
low. However, as we proceed through run-out of the general IPv4 free pool
the motivations for abuse will increase dramatically. Raising the standard to
three participants to qualify as an IXP seems like a prudent precaution to
ensure that the reservation for IXPs, and other critical infrastructure that
was made in ARIN-2011-4, is protected to ensure availability of resources for
legitimate IXPs in the future.
There will be some impact on the start-up of some IXPs, this is unfortunate.
However, the three participant standard is not completely unreasonable, given
the potential for increased abuse of the two participant standard.
The Open-IX community has had some discussions of this very subject.
Perhaps the author or other members of the Open-IX Board can summarize on
this specific matter. I believe the Open-IX community has settled on 3 as
the way forward. I am OK with that.
Does the community believe that additional clarity is needed to define
if an IXP uses the end-user or ISP fee schedule?
I believe both the old language and the new language regarding this issue
should be stricken, this is an ARIN business issue, not a policy issue. I
have no problem with such a recommendation being included in the comments
section, outside the policy text itself. I support the general concept it
represents, but it is just not a policy issue in my opinion.
many pluses to the paragraph immediately preceeding. I feel that this is a
direct modification of the fee structure via policy, and therefore do not
support the draft policy as written.
John Springer
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
