The initial connecting pirates must be unique and independent from each other.
I think this part is even more important than making the number "3" instead of "2".
Too much game playing is being done with this section, allowing corporately related parties to obtain this space to connect themselves together without any real intent to EVER publically peer with any unrelated parties. If they want to make what is a private peering point, they should be forced to use their own address space to do so, and not the IX space meant for public peering.
I would even suggest that the terms of a public offering of peering be made FIRST and the existance of a public offer to peer be made a condition to receive IX space from ARIN. This will help prevent use of this space only private related parties, and without any real intent to actually have a PUBLIC IX among actual unrelated parties.
Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Based on my experience, I believe three is correct. I did back when we all came to consensus on the v4 policy for micro allocation and do now. The infrastructure development impact is very important to the Internet. Making sure the resources are going to be used legitimately for development and not flag planting is also important. HTH, -M< On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 21:26 Richard Laager <[email protected]> wrote: Absolutely. I’d love to see the number be higher, like 3 or 5. If you can’t find more than two, are you really going to get anywhere? -- Richard On Dec 5, 2023, at 17:51, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: - 4.4. Micro-allocation Defines the minimum participant count as "three" - 6.10.1. Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure Defines the minimum participants count justification as "two" How'd that happen? I can't seem to pin down a draft to see. As I researched this, however, I again saw widely and was reminded of the below. Here's what we have justification wise in both: Exchange point operators must provide justification for the allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. Here's what we see a lot as a result (which is not in the spirit of the policy): Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 1: Spaghetti-IX Route Server ASN 65536 Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 2: Spaghetti-IX Route Server ASN 65537 Spaghetti-IX Justification Peer 1: CedgeoEonnecto (BOS) Here's what I suggest would be meaningful: Exchange point operators must justify the allocation by providing the location of the switch, the contact information information and public ASN of the initial connecting parties. The initial connecting pirates must be unique and independent from each other. Which should result in: Meatball-IX Justification Peer 1: Unique Network ASN 65536 Meatball-IX Justification Peer 2: Unique Network ASN 65537 Meatball-IX Justification Peer 1: Unique Network ASN 65538 That would prevent quite a bit of cruft IMHO. FYI, -M< _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
