It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us who operate IXP's *(or those who lived through the ep.net <http://ep.net> era).* Renumbering events are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this "savings" is not worth the operational overhead. I'm not in support of this proposal. This is a solution looking for a problem, we have both the appropriate pool size and a method to refill.
If anything, the 4.4 requirement language around *"other participants (minimum of three total)" *could use some attention. ARIN's service region has many "shadow IXP's", which may have 3 unique ASN's *(say a route server, route collector, and management network) *- but are all operated by the same organization. That does not seem like a legitimate definition of an exchange point, especially when that operator is the only participant over several years. --Matt On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: > On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-320: > /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs” as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2 >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.