On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, 11:54 Job Snijders via ARIN-PPML,
wrote:
>
> I think there shouldn't be a hard rule about the space being publicly
> routable or not, it is up to the individual IXP operators to decide what
> technical approach is best for their stakeholder community.
>
Sure, but it is stil
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:44:26PM -0400, Ryan Woolley wrote:
> IXPs do commonly have a desire to prevent their member LAN prefix from
> being routable. The current best practice is that this prefix is
> signed in RPKI with an origin ASN of zero (as described in RFC 6483),
> and Community IX does
Doug,
The current FL-IX space was requested in September 2014 (prior to
run-out.) The peering LAN /24 appears on the "Micro-allocations for
Internet Exchange Points" list at
https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/microallocations/ The
infrastructure /24 does not. Both the CIX-ATL /2
I would consider both the non-globally routed peering LAN, as well as a /24 for
globally routed administrative uses (IXManager, Looking Glass, even the IX's
website) to be valid uses for 4.4 space.
In my opinion, any use of IPs on the peering LAN, so long as it's used to peer
on the IX, is legitim
Ryan –
Thanks so much for surfacing this discussion on PPML.
Reading through the responses from everyone, I think it’s clear there are use
cases for IXPs to reasonably need a block of routable space for administrative
purposes, particularly independent ones where there is no guaranteed sponsor
> On Apr 19, 2024, at 00:44, Ryan Woolley wrote:
> At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification from the community on
> whether an internet exchange needs IP space beyond that used for the
> switching fabric, and whether IP allocations made to an IXP operator may need
> to be routable.
Sp
