On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand > > <[email protected]> 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? > >> > >> Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, > support changing 2 to 3. > > Howdy, > > I agree with Scott. I can still get a /28 on a consumer DSL line for > $25/mo and routers renumber easily. There is no burden here. > > > > Would you entertain more than 3? > > I would entertain up to 5, allowing a comfortable fit in a /29 before > requesting ARIN space. Beyond that the logistical problems become > noticeable enough to merit a direct assignment. Not so severe as to > require it, but noticeable. > If provider A is connecting to a small IXP in order to connect to provider B, but the /29 is controlled by a third party (provider C) that provider A may not even choose to peer with, then provider A may be reluctant to connect. If the IXP can get ARIN space based on 3 participants, that seems like the logical cutoff point to me. I still (weakly) support the change from 2 to 3, but would not support a larger number. -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.
