The primary thought that comes to my mind: 1. By the time it got through the policy process, it would probably be overtaken by events.
2. Deck chairs. Owen On Mar 11, 2014, at 11:09 , Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who are concerned about making sure these types of blocks are > available in the future, there are two other avenues which could be > explored beyond what is proposed in this policy. > > 1. Increase the size of reserved block which ARIN is holding for > micro-allocations. > > 2. Remove the /24 minimum for IXP allocations. Since there is no > technical reason to have an IXP block be a /24 and the operational best > practice is to not route these blocks we could look at "right sizing" > IXP blocks rather giving a very small IXPs a rather large block for what > they need. Yes, this brings up the possible renumbering issue in the > future, but a /25 or /26 still allows quite a number of IXP participants. > > Do operators have any thoughts on these ideas? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On 3/10/2014 12:56 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> I agree there is no downside keeping it as it is. We ought to be making it >> easier not harder wherever we can. I'm against changing it as well. >> >> Steven Ryerse >> President >> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 >> 770.656.1460 - Cell >> 770.399.9099- Office >> >> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. >> Conquering Complex Networks℠ >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Brandon Ross >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:51 PM >> To: Scott Leibrand >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 >> MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised >> >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> 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? >> Yes, renumbering is hard. Renumbering is even harder for rural entities >> that don't have tons of high end network engineers around. It's hard enough >> for rural service providers to pool enough funds to buy a switch and stand >> up an IX, discouraging them from building additional interconnectivity by >> making it difficult to get IP addresses is disappointing. >> >> On the other hand, there is absolutely no downside to keeping the >> requirement the way it is. Changing it does nothing for conservation of >> IPv4 addresses at all, as any dishonest players won't have a harder time at >> all faking 3 entities as compared to 2. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
