I'm the author of this proposal as well as supporting it. I don't have an objection to removing fee related language (which was already there) as long as ARIN isn't classifying exchanges as ISP's. They aren't.
I find the below comment re allocation size is "interesting", but not related to this proposal. JS is correct, the Open-IX community did discuss and agree that three makes an IXP. Best, Marty On Thursday, February 6, 2014, Michael Still <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, John Springer > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > Not really responding to you, you just happened to be the last in the > thread.. > > Perhaps we should look at tackling some of our dwindling number > resources issues in a different perspective. Have we considered > updating the policy to only issue prefix sizes which are reasonable in > the first place? What makes just setting up an IXP be enough to issue > a /24? What if this IXP is in a market in which there will never be > more than 126 participants? Or worse much less? Should these IXPs be > given /24s when a much smaller allocation may be all that's needed? > Or should every IXP have to start small and as their participation > increases they be issued new space to move into? > > I believe the argument for global prefix visibility of IXP space has > been largely discussed and consensus is that this space does not and > should not be globally reachable voiding any perceived need for a /24 > I believe. > > > > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> -- > >> ================================================ > >> David Farmer Email: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> 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] <javascript:;> > ). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> if you experience any > issues. > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <javascript:;>). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> if you experience any > issues. > > > > -- > [[email protected] <javascript:;> ~]$ cat .signature > cat: .signature: No such file or directory > [[email protected] <javascript:;> ~]$ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <javascript:;>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> 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.
