Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Someone pointed me at 4.4 and noted that it says that an IXP can
> receive an allocation if two parties are present. The common
> understanding in the industry is that two parties connected are private
> peering and three on a common switch "could" be an IXP.
> Is there a reason not to bump this number up to three in light of
> prevailing circumstances and conservation of the infrastructure pool?
If two parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch, rather than just
do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if two don't count.
Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28 around, and renumbering
for two parties isn't that hard.
I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server would count) for IPv4
micro-allocation, but an IPv6 micro-allocation can acquired for free if any
of the parties have an existing RSA.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
