We (SFMIX) also agree with Ryan comments, +1. While the actual IXP member LAN prefixes are not announced globally, often IXP's will operate support infrastructure - such as monitoring, route debugging (looking glass), and related compute infrastructure. Those resources need to be accessible to a global operational community.
If we're going to revisit the IXP pool, solving actual operational problems might be useful. For example, offering an allocation scheme that allows for an IXP to expand easily from a /24 to /23. Renumbering events span years for IXP's and this is a very painful process. It appears that the spare allocation scheme has been a bit on again, off again. If the policy needs revision *(John's comments did not provide enough of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another IPv4 land grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content caches, and/or the historical industry acceptable usage that Ryan shares), *maybe consider micro-allocations for IXP usage as unannounced prefixes and for routed prefixes, an IXP applies under NRPM 4.3 *(end user assignments). * --Matt
_______________________________________________ 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.
