> On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:06, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello > > On 11/12/2023 09:38, Christopher Hawker wrote: >> <clip> >> >> 1. If a current IXP applies for space under this policy, they should be >> restricted from transferring new or existing delegations under any transfer >> conditions to prevent existing IXPs from applying for resources under this >> policy, renumbering their existing IXPs and then selling their old space. >> Should there be a requirement for a transfer under Mergers & Acquisitions, >> then the recipient acquiring the IXP or the organisation that the IXP is >> being merged into should be required to apply for a new delegation and >> renumber accordingly. This will not apply if the source and recipient >> members are identical in structure (i.e. same directors and shareholders, >> and the transfer is simply an organisation restructure). > I tend to agre with this restriction. It would not be fair with the community > with such behavior. If an IXP applies and receives space under this policy > this could be for a newer location,but not to be used in a existing one to be > sold/transferred to make money if it. > If there is a Merger & Acquisition the newer entity must be an IXP, otherwise > this space should be returned to ARIN and be used exclusively for the same > proposes initially justified.
This is a proposed APNIC policy… Why on EARTH would an IXP that got their space from APNIC “return” it to ARIN? >> >> 2. New IXPs need to be able to demonstrate that they have the infrastructure >> to do so, to prevent people from applying for the sake of holding space and >> not actually using it. Given that new IXPs may not be willing to procure >> equipment for the operation of the IXP or enter into an contract with a >> datacentre provider unless the application for resources is approved, the >> APNIC Secretariat may elect to provide pre-approval for IP space, subject to >> the provisioning of a contract or other service agreement with a datacentre >> operator and purchase documentation (in the name of the organisation >> operating the IXP) being provided for space and infrastructure to operate >> the IXP. > Sure thing. >> >> 3. IXP delegations should have a caveat placed upon them that prevents them >> from being globally routed, regardless of the size. > I often hear this about blocks assigned to IXPs and I don't fully agree. IXPs > may choose to use globally routed blocks for its own infrastructure (portal, > etc) and that is a fair usage. Normally it is not necessary for most cases > and specially for the block used for the MLPA but may not be for all cases. > I reckon it may make more difficult for APNIC to keep an eye that the > receiver is using it correctly but at the end it still may be a justifiable > usage. I think a restriction that requires them to be used for an IXP and only for an IXP is sufficient. There are models of IXPs that do have reason to route the IXP segment. They are not the most common model, but they do exist. RIRs should not be in the business of dictating routing policy to anyone. Owen (Who remains opposed to this policy in its entirety) _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
