On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 7:45 AM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the Internet Exchange allocations I normally don't see a big > problem with routing part of the space that is used for other things other > than the LAN (for example for User Portal, Looking Glass hosting, etc), but > here comes a dilemma. > Imagine the RIR have to assign an exclusive /24 for a new smaller IXP and > they will have usage for only 4 or 5 IP addresses for hosting its basic > stuff. That would be a major waste. And another /24 for the LAN which is > fine. So an IXP would always consume a /23 while 50% is known to be probably > wasted, unless properly justified.
Hi Fernando, As I understand it, ARIN's implementation of section 4.4 doesn't treat the marketing and business sides of the IXP as qualified for a microallocation. I haven't explicitly asked staff, but it's kinda implicit in the routing restriction reported in the PER. The 2024-5 draft is mute on that subject, so I expect the resulting implementation would retain the understanding that the business/marketing side of the IXP does not qualify for 4.4 addresses. What's the desired outcome? Should IXPs get preference for the business components which don't need to be part of the peering LAN? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
