Doug, The current FL-IX space was requested in September 2014 (prior to run-out.) The peering LAN /24 appears on the "Micro-allocations for Internet Exchange Points" list at https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/microallocations/ The infrastructure /24 does not. Both the CIX-ATL /24s are IXP allocations. A newly assigned /23 which we'll use to renumber FL-IX is within the /16 mentioned on the page but itself does not yet appear.
The FL-IX /24 is >75% utilized. Prior to the assignment of the /23, we were challenged about the routing of the existing /24s. As you can see from the other responses, our long-standing use is consistent with the need and there is no reasonable alternative. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the /23, but under a different interpretation, a 158-member non-profit IXP wouldn't be able to expand with ARIN space, which I don't think would have been an outcome consistent with the intent of the critical infrastructure policy. As mentioned by Bill, other IXPs in the ARIN region will also face a renumbering need soon, so the question about appropriate use of existing assignments is timely. Regards, Ryan Woolley Community IX On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:23 AM Douglas Camin <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryan – > > > > Thanks so much for surfacing this discussion on PPML. > > > > Reading through the responses from everyone, I think it’s clear there are > use cases for IXPs to reasonably need a block of routable space for > administrative purposes, particularly independent ones where there is no > guaranteed sponsor pool to pull from. Ryan – did your IXP use a 4.4 > allocation for the administrative prefix, or pull that from elsewhere? > > > > I think a follow up question, from a policy perspective, would be: The > policy (4.4) as written defines several critical infrastructure categories, > but does not create a boundary for what services can run on those > allocations. Does this create an avenue for abuse of this pool? > > > > I think the example already shared of using this as a fast way to get v4 > space to use as a CDN node seems like a good one – there may be a use case > for it to exist on the member network, but using that IP for access for the > Internet at large would appear (to me) to be in violation of the spirit of > the policy and the reason for the allocation. > > > > In the current setup, ARIN staff is almost certainly having to make > interpretations and judgement calls, which leads to the additional question > – does the community want more than that? > > > > Thank you – > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > -- > > Douglas J. Camin > > ARIN Advisory Council > > [email protected] > > > > *From: *ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of Ryan Woolley < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 6:44 PM > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations > for IXPs > > At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification from the community on > whether an internet exchange needs IP space beyond that used for the > switching fabric, and whether IP allocations made to an IXP operator may > need to be routable. Additionally, John shared a suggestion that the > historical basis for maintaining a pool specific to IXPs was to enable the > building of filters to prevent those addresses from being globally routable. > > Community IX operates two IXPs, FL-IX in south Florida and CIX-ATL in > Atlanta. FL-IX was founded in 2015 and now connects 158 member networks. > CIX-ATL began operations in 2019 and currently connects 66 member networks. > > Both IXPs have been assigned IP address space from ARIN. Each IXP uses > one prefix for the member LAN, which is not announced outside of our > members’ networks, and a second, routed, prefix for the IXP infrastructure. > > The routed prefix supports operations critical to the operation of the > exchange. Our member portal, network management systems, and equipment > loopback addresses are, by need and design, addressed in routable IP > space. For example, route servers build filters based on ROAs and IRR > databases, and configurations are replicated off-site. > > Unlike an IXP affiliated with an ISP or data center operator, we have no > line of business which would enable us to borrow IP space from, for > example, a pool maintained for allocation to IP transit customers. Our > transit is provided as a donation by members, who may come or go as their > connectivity needs require, so we cannot reasonably use > non-provider-independent IP space. > > On the second question of whether space reserved for IXP allocations > should be unroutable as a feature, we have not, in our years of operation, > encountered any issues with reachability for these allocations. If > networks are building filters for this purpose, our experience suggests > that is not a common practice. > > IXPs do commonly have a desire to prevent their member LAN prefix from > being routable. The current best practice is that this prefix is signed in > RPKI with an origin ASN of zero (as described in RFC 6483), and Community > IX does this for both our IXPs’ member LANs. To the extent that filtering > based on IP addressing may have been contemplated in the past, is it now > obsoleted by RPKI. > > Regards, > > Ryan Woolley > Community IX > _______________________________________________ > 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.
