> On May 24, 2024, at 22:31, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> On May 24, 2024, at 00:16, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On May 23, 2024, at 06:24, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> I agree that it should be a shared segment fabric >> I’m on the fence about this. At first glance, yeah, that seems obvious. >> But then what about all the crossconnects and VLAN-based “virtual >> crossconnects?” Those all _necessarily_ need to be numbered out of provider >> space? I agree that at large exchanges, that would consume a lot of IP >> space quickly, but it’s not like it’s not getting consumed anyway, it’s just >> a question of who provides it. If the IX provides it, the peering >> connection is obvious in traceroutes and to other analytical tools, and >> that’s very valuable. If one of the participants provides it, that >> information is lost and has to be fuzzily inferred. > Every IX implementation I’m aware of that uses those still has some form of > shared fabric at the core of the exchange which I think would still qualify > with the proposed wording.
For new allocations, presumably. It would be good to avoid wording which would
leave IXPs seeking approval for additional allocations or transfers unable to
justify them because they’d used some of the allocation for crossconnects.
> What we are working to avoid here is permitting “virtual IX” implementations,
> which are great for teaching, but don’t represent real world peering
> interconnects in any meaningful way.
Agreed. Any actual lab or teaching environment can be numbered out of 1918
space.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ 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.
