> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote: >> 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. > > Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this in > place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available. > > Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for > not increasing it to three or more..
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant? Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3. Scott _______________________________________________ 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.
