Michael Peddemors wrote: > While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller > players. > More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some > exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd > participant.
Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. _______________________________________________ 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.
