Re: >>>Isn't that just private peering for the time during which no one else >>>participates?
Surely you can have private peering with 3 participants or 5 participants if you wish? I dont see how you can decide simply based on the number of participants there has to be more in the motar. RD > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:50:58 +0000 > From: David Huberman <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: > < > 0a4fbb7a1d404f88b078468abe9d1...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I support 2014-7's requirement to raise the number of participants > required to obtain an IXP micro-allocation. 3 may be too low, but it's > better than 2. > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Andrew Dul > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > > The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy. > > Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required > to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7 > > Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update > > > > Date: 4 March 2014 > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private > > peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation > > with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in > > North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that > > micro-allocation space is not wasted. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from: > > > > Exchange point operators must provide justification for the > > allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants > > (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. > > > > To: > > > > Exchange point operators must provide justification for the > > allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants > > (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information. > > > > Comments: > > a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate b.Anything else: > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:57:57 -0700 > From: Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for > smaller players. More information might be needed to determine adverse > cases, or possibly some exemption for rural players that might not be > able to attain a 3rd participant. > > On 14-03-10 08:37 AM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy. > > > > Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required > > to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > >> > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7 > >> Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update > >> > >> Date: 4 March 2014 > >> > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> Two networks interconnecting are generally considered to be private > >> peers. The current policy allows an IXP to receive a micro-allocation > >> with only two devices. Given IPv4 exhaustion and the growth of IXPs in > >> North America it is prudent to raise the minimum criteria so that > >> micro-allocation space is not wasted. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> Change the following paragraph in Section 4.4 from: > >> > >> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the > >> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants > >> (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. > >> > >> To: > >> > >> Exchange point operators must provide justification for the > >> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants > >> (minimum of three total), ASN, and contact information. > >> > >> Comments: > >> a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >> b.Anything else: > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > > > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. > Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic > Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca > "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > > This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:05:03 +0000 > From: David Huberman <[email protected]> > To: 'Michael Peddemors' <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: > < > dfb6bb58dfc14d1d93ce0a13ec99c...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Michael Peddemors wrote: > > > While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for > smaller players. > > More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly > some > > exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd > participant. > > Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are > only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during > which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying > the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:24:09 -0700 > From: Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote: > > Michael Peddemors wrote: > > > >> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for > smaller players. > >> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or > possibly some > >> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd > participant. > > Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are > only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during > which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying > the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. > > Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this > in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available. > > Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see > for not increasing it to three or more.. > > > > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. > Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic > Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca > "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > > This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:44:50 -0700 > From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > To: Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote: > >> Michael Peddemors wrote: > >> > >>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for > smaller players. > >>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or > possibly some > >>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd > participant. > >> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are > only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during > which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying > the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. > > > > Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this > in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available. > > > > Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can see > for not increasing it to three or more.. > > Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and > renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant? > > Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, > support changing 2 to 3. > > Scott > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:54:08 -0400 > From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: > < > camdxq5nipm0zob2qoze9mt705apox9c2zoe-xbuomsixuic...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote: > >>> Michael Peddemors wrote: > >>> > >>>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for > smaller players. > >>>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or > possibly some > >>>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd > participant. > >>> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are > only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during > which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying > the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants. > >> > >> Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this > in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available. > >> > >> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can > see for not increasing it to three or more.. > > > > Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and > renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant? > > > > Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, > support changing 2 to 3. > > > > > Would you entertain more than 3? > > Best, > > -M< > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:57:55 -0700 > From: Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> > To: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>, Scott Leibrand > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro > Allocation Conservation Update - Revised > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 14-03-10 09:54 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >>> Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can > see for not increasing it to three or more.. > >> > > >> >Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and > renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant? > >> > > >> >Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, > support changing 2 to 3. > >> > > > > > Would you entertain more than 3? > > > > Best, > > > > -M< > > If the outside argument I mentioned is not something that would make > anyone reconsider, then it might as well be more than 3.. > > > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. > Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic > Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca > "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > > This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 105, Issue 16 > ****************************************** > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
