Not really. It's a simple proposal being under thought to some extent as well. I suggested we up the number of participants, nothing more. The rest of the discussion is interesting, but not relevant to the proposal itself.
One alternative is an update to Section 12 and a mandate that ARIN audit IXP's after 1 year (and audit all of them now) and if found to still have only two participants, revoke their leased resources. Much easier to start out with a point to point and an easy renumbering into shot at success. Otherwise, we're building petri dishes to watch spam and viruses swap back and forth, wasting number resources and money; many of these ill fated expeditions are tax payer funded. See www.ix.pr Best, -M< On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, George Herbert <[email protected]>wrote: > This is approaching a Shrubbery. > > I oppose 2014-7; no clear need has been documented for any change, and the > discussion is clearly demonstrating the risks in trying to overthink where > we draw lines like this. > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:10 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > > -- > -george william herbert > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
