On 1/9/14, 15:41 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can receive
an allocation if two parties are present. The common understanding in
the industry is that two parties connected are private peering and three
on a common switch "could" be an IXP.
Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool? If
two is arbitrarily low, it's a good time to make three arbitrarily low.
I think it would be wise in terms of insuring that resources are being
used effectively.
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable to me.
I'd add that if there are only two it seems reasonable that one of the
two participants can provide the address block, when there is three or
more that much more reasonably meets the definition of an IXP and better
justifies allocation of addresses independent of any of the participants.
Further, the same change should be considered to for IPv6 in 6.10.1.
Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure. I think it would be a
bad idea to have different definitions for an IXP between IPv4 and IPv6.
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
