Different issues. Two will always be a PNI. Submit other proposals for other issues please.
Best, Martin On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Andrew Dul <andrew....@quark.net> wrote: > For those who are concerned about making sure these types of blocks are > available in the future, there are two other avenues which could be > explored beyond what is proposed in this policy. > > 1. Increase the size of reserved block which ARIN is holding for > micro-allocations. > > 2. Remove the /24 minimum for IXP allocations. Since there is no > technical reason to have an IXP block be a /24 and the operational best > practice is to not route these blocks we could look at "right sizing" > IXP blocks rather giving a very small IXPs a rather large block for what > they need. Yes, this brings up the possible renumbering issue in the > future, but a /25 or /26 still allows quite a number of IXP participants. > > Do operators have any thoughts on these ideas? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On 3/10/2014 12:56 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > I agree there is no downside keeping it as it is. We ought to be making > it easier not harder wherever we can. I'm against changing it as well. > > > > Steven Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099- Office > > > > ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <javascript:;> [mailto: > arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Brandon Ross > > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:51 PM > > To: Scott Leibrand > > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <javascript:;> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 > MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised > > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > >> 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? > > Yes, renumbering is hard. Renumbering is even harder for rural entities > that don't have tons of high end network engineers around. It's hard > enough for rural service providers to pool enough funds to buy a switch and > stand up an IX, discouraging them from building additional > interconnectivity by making it difficult to get IP addresses is > disappointing. > > > > On the other hand, there is absolutely no downside to keeping the > requirement the way it is. Changing it does nothing for conservation of > > IPv4 addresses at all, as any dishonest players won't have a harder time > at all faking 3 entities as compared to 2. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net <javascript:;>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
