On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule > after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool. Also, there seems to be > a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more > difficult for some IXPs to get going. >
Agreed, and I would favor the 3 participant rule against the 2 participant rule. It would be hard indeed, to start an Exchange later; if all the reserved resources were allocated to 2-participant "exchanges". The burden should not be obscenely high, for a new Exchange to sign up at least 3 participants. As I see it: ARIN's job after exhaustion, is to try to allocate IP address resources required today, not to facilitate the anticipated expansion via IXPs that would today be just expensive two-member peering arrangements structured as a 2 member IXP in order to qualify for some extra /22 or so. My other observation is: An Exchange with only two current participants is not really an Exchange, but a private peering -- regardless of the theory of possible additional participants in the future. While it is ARIN policy not to recover addresses solely due to lack of use, PERHAPS it should be different for IXP and critical infrastructure/immediate need microallocations under 4.4, or 4.10. E.g. Required notification when the number of verifiable actively-interconnected Exchange participants drops below 2, Or, when some or all of the microallocation is no longer being used in the manner that justified its allocation for Critical Infrastructure: With possible required return and renumber requirement solely due to non-use. Thanks. > -- -JH
_______________________________________________ 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.
