In the case of an IXP, the router configs in question are of third parties engaging in peering over the purported IXP. If ARIN wants to require IXP participant attestation that an IXP is real and really using the IP space in question in order to allow routing of the IP space, they certainly could. If they don't want to have to do that, and don't have a problem with the current routing limitation, I'm fine with that as well.
-Scott On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 1:39 PM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:02 AM Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I agree that routed IXP space that’s actually being used solely for the > IXP itself (easy enough to demonstrate with router configs), and not for > some other purpose, is probably fine. > > > On Feb 22, 2025, at 10:02 AM, Christopher Malayter < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I support allowing the space to be routed. > > Hi Scott, Chris: > > Any thoughts on controlling fraud? That's an operational problem of > course, not something that goes in the policy, but it is a problem > ARIN staff will have to solve in their implementation of the policy. > The NRPM 4.10 address pool has been a target of fraud in the past, but > with the routing limitation the 4.4 pool has not. Needless to say, > router configs are trivially forged. > > 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.
