On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote: >>> Michael Peddemors wrote: >>> >>>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for >>>> >smaller players. >>>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly >>>> >some >>>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd >>>> >participant. >>> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are only >>> 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during which >>> no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying the >>> draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. >> >> Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this in >> place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available. >> >> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see for >> not increasing it to three or more.. > > Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and renumber > into a larger block if/when they get a third participant? > > Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, > support changing 2 to 3. >
Would you entertain more than 3? Best, -M< _______________________________________________ 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.
