On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. Also agree that IXPs with only a handful of participants are a > very easy low-cost renumbering scenario. > Why should the bar be as low as two or 3 participants? > > Why not make the required number at least 9 or 10 participants minimum, > with actual documentation for 4 or 5, before a whole /24 is warranted?
Hi Jimmy, Personally, I like the number 5. Here's why: A) I've participated in a couple of IXPs that were more wishful thinking than reality. By the time an IXP has 5 participants, it's no longer wishful thinking. I'm no longer concerned that it may fail to grow, stranding a bunch of otherwise usable addresses. B) 5 participants plus the IXP's route server fits just so into a /29 C) When it comes time to renumber, the more participants involved, the more of a PITA it becomes. A handful is not too bad, but coordinating the action of a dozen folks starts to get messy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
