I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very important
part of Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in
terms of redundancy, robustness and performance. Yes IPv4 NLRI over IPv6
may work but people don't seem to be willing to use it very much and for
such usage for small chunks it makes it worth.
Just make in a way that is possible and easy for the RIR to know if one
if misusing it for other proposes and be able to action.
I also don't like the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs below
/24, but if that is the feasible option than better than nothing.
Fernando
On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in reality, IXPs
are the place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix.
It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering session
these days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your network.
The only real consequence of this is to make IPv4 trace routes look a
little funky on the hop that traverses the exchange.
Yes, there’s a perceptual hurdle to this and there are those that view
an IPv6 only IXP as undesirable compared to a dual-stack one, but at
some point, we’re going to just have to get over that.
I don’t support shrinking IPv4 delegations from RIRs below /24 and
multiple IXPs have argued against doing so.
The only possible gain to this policy is prolonging the perceived life
of IPv4 which, IMHO, is a step away from good. (Note, it won’t prolong
the actual life of IPv4, just increase the amount of pain involved
while it lasts).
Owen
On Nov 25, 2023, at 16:55, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
Went back to work on language that may have an impact. We seem to
have dropped three paragraphs from drafts that are in the current
policy. I can't tell if it's intentional but I'll assume it was.
Doesn't appear clearly marked for deletion unless I missed it. The
original or the June edit was also not a mirror of the RIPE proposal.
ARIN can decide if anything needs to be fixed documentation wise or
if we could use the help of a red line for the below. Didn't matter
much anyhow.
The easiest way to extend the life of the micro allocation pool will
be to apply better justification standards. Right now, 26% of US IXPs
don't meet the minimum criteria for an initial /24 using the existing
policy. Most of that happened in the last few years and as Aaron
Wendell discussed at the last meeting.
Here's what I support
- Initial allocation of a /26 to a new IXP, and
- Include "CI" to keep it simple and consistent. No reason to single
out IXPs
- A voluntary global routability requirement determined by applicant
for CI
- Tightened utilization requirements for CI
- Removing the possibility of other RIR's asking ARIN for allocations
(glitch?)
If the root or a TLD can't do it, what makes anyone think an IXP can?
I agree with my RIPE friends' comments regarding up front costs. It
already costs $11,000 for a "free" IXP without a /24. Add a transfer
/24 and it's $22,000 not including opex, RIR fees, depreciation, etc.
If it does cost a future IXP an additional $11,000 for a /24 and it's
not easily absorbed (lots of that happening today) they failed and
will not start up. Turning the knobs on network economics should go
slow - as they also acknowledged. And should als be applied to non-CI
first. That seems like a faster way to enable better transition.
On a last note. It would be nice to have a "style sheet" so we had
consistency with defined terms and language. Repeating "under this
section" and other "time honored traditions" makes policy hard to
read when it doesn't have to be.
4.4 Micro-allocation
ARIN will make IPv4 micro-allocations to critical infrastructure
(“CI”) providers of the Internet, which includes Internet Exchange
Points (“IXP”), IANA authorized root servers, top-level domain
operators and this RIR. Requests for IPv4 allocations will be no
smaller than a /26 or larger than a /23 for allocations which require
global reachability. Global reachability requirements will be
determined by the requestor. ARIN will maintain a previously reserved
/15 of IPv4 address space for the purposes of CI allocations.
4.4.1 Additional Requirement for IXPs
An IXP requesting an initial IPv4 allocation from the blocks
specifically reserved for this purpose will initially be assigned a
/26 allocated from a /24 by default if they demonstrate three
independent ASN’s are planning to interconnect on the IXP fabric
using the requested allocation. An IXP requesting an allocation
larger than a /24 must show their plan to utilize more than 50% of
the requested allocation size up to a /23. Allocations larger than a
/23 will be considered on a case-by-case basis using usual and
customary allocation practices in effect at the time of the request.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:34 PM ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the
Advisory Council met on 16 November 2023.
The AC has advanced the following to Draft Policy status (will be
posted separately for discussion):
* ARIN-prop-327: Reduce 4.18 maximum allocation
The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are
found to be within the scope of the Policy Development Process
(PDP) and contain a clear problem statement.
The AC has advanced the following to Recommended Draft Policy
status (will be posted separately for discussion):
* ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start
The AC advances Draft Policies to Recommended Draft Policy status
once they have been fully developed and meet ARIN's Principles of
Internet Number Resource Policy. Specifically, these principles are:
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community
The AC is continuing to work on:
Draft Policies:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
* ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs
* ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements
* ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification
* ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11
Multiple Discrete Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18
Organizational Identifier (Org ID)
Recommended Draft Policies:
* ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1
The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
Regards,
Eddie Diego
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
