On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]>wrote:
> > mcr> If two parties decide to start an IXP, and get a switch, > rather > mcr> than just do private peering, it's really hard to get to three if > two > mcr> don't count. Still, one party or the other *ought* to have a /28 > mcr> around, and renumbering for two parties isn't that hard. > > mcr> I propose a compromise: three parties (a route server > would > mcr> count) for IPv4 micro-allocation, > > david> I think I like this idea. > > > Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's interesting, but you're introducing a new barrier. Capital. Some > > are already encumbered by bad advice and capital constraints. By > upping > > the number a digit you actually increase their likelihood and getting > > an ROI on their capital. > > > Adding a route server is a good idea, but without the third, it's a > > waste of capital IMHO and a new barrier. > > 1) if you are an IXP, you need that switch. > If it's an 8-port Linksys you got at FutureShop, I don't care. > 2) I'm saying, you can *count* the route server, not that you have to have > one. > Or, you can count the third party. > (A route server can be built with a PIII + quagga) > > At the end of the day, you're still technically a PNI. Bill Woodycock had it right when he said it's easy to get a third party. I think it's a reasonable requirement, without the extra capital requirements. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ 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.
