I accept the draft policy statement for the most part, with the only change to swap “Ethernet” with “Layer 2”. This I believe will satisfy both camps of the debate, ie those who think that the definition should be in keeping with standards bodies’ technical definition and those who want the policy to remain technology neutral.
Yves Ephraim From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 12:33 PM To: Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> Cc: arin-ppml <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation I’d argue that the examples you point out are a bit different, as in they are inherent aspects of the specific technologies and functionality that ARIN is charged with its stewardship of (in this case, IP and AS resources), but does not necessarily call out a specific technology other than those. As a counterexample, there are no references to BGP in the NRPM; while it’s highly unlikely that a new protocol will overtake it, there would be no needed changes to the NRPM to accommodate should that happen. More importantly, should there be a technical need and will to standardize on a new protocol to replace BGP, there’s zero concern that ARIN policy will slow the development or adoption of such a technology. (True, the chances of BGP being eclipsed by a new protocol are probably lower than the chances of Ethernet being replaced, but I don’t think that dilutes the argument here.) This is my main concern around the use “Ethernet” in this proposal - it’s not that we are simply acknowledging what is standard practice today, but I would never want ARIN policy to be a blocker for the adoption of new technologies, and the more specific we get about what technologies are required per policy, the higher that risk becomes. Thanks, -Chris On May 29, 2024, at 07:34, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com <mailto:hanni...@gmail.com> > wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:22 Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com> > wrote: Again, I think (and if I were involved in Open-IX would argue there) that their standard is over-specified and over-constrained. While 802.3z and 802.3ae are very common interfaces today, I know, for example, that there are at least a couple of IXPs that are considering (if not implemented) the elimination of 802.3z and moved up to 802.3ae as a minimum IX connection. I think the days of every IX offering 1Gpbs connections are certainly numbered as 10G becomes ever cheaper to implement. I hear you. We disagree (rarely). The benefit is we close a massive hole in policy and not replace one loop hole with another. There are other prescriptive requirements in the NRPM. Multihoming. 6.4.4. Minimum allocation sizes. Policies by shepherd singling out IX allocation sizes eg /26. IETF -> IANA global instructions. Nothing really new here. HTH -M< _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
