On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, 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?
It is if it's open to more participants at any time.
Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else
participates?
Not necessarily, a private peering would almost always be implemented very
differently than an IX.
I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the draw down of a /24 from
the public free pool, for two participants.
The value of more potential IXs becoming available to the public far
outweighs the tiny bit of IPv4 space that this proposal might consume.
Clearly I'm against raising the requirement.
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Skype: brandonross
Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross
_______________________________________________
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.
