> On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:18 AM, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> wrote:
> It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us who
> operate IXP's (or those who lived through the ep.net era). Renumbering events
> are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this "savings" is not worth the
> operational overhead. I'm not in support of this proposal. This is a solution
> looking for a problem, we have both the appropriate pool size and a method to
> refill.
> If anything, the 4.4 requirement language around "other participants (minimum
> of three total)" could use some attention. ARIN's service region has many
> "shadow IXP's", which may have 3 unique ASN's (say a route server, route
> collector, and management network) - but are all operated by the same
> organization. That does not seem like a legitimate definition of an exchange
> point, especially when that operator is the only participant over several
> years.
I would just chime in to say that I definitely agree with the first of Matt’s
points. IXPs rarely know how long it will be until they need a larger address
space, and when they do, it’s typically too late to renumber hundreds of
different organizations. This policy would create a vast amount of unnecessary
work for ARIN members, while yielding no obvious benefit to anyone.
As regards what constitutes a “real” IXP, that’s a tougher question. While
Matt is undoubtedly correct that Andrew’s Basement Exchange, the canonical
example, may not have three unrelated participants at the time they apply,
that’s also true, at the outset, of many IXPs which follow a sure-footed path
to success. And it’s not possible to know in advance, in any sort of
replicable policy way, which will ultimately succeed, and which fail. I guess
my thought on this is to be liberal in distributing, and also relatively quick
to reclaim when an IXP goes defunct. Over the last 31 years, 34% of all IXPs
that were established, went defunct. Many took years or decades to fail, but
once they have, there’s no reason for those allocations to persist. Most IXPs
are one-off, a group of ISPs who get together to form an IXP in a specific
location. A few consist of a single organization spanning multiple unconnected
locations… When those organizations are for-profit startups, I guess I would
evaluate their claims carefully, and do a slow-start, rather than allowing them
to use the policy to get a /24 for every new claimed location, in advance of
proving themselves.
-Bill
_______________________________________________
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.
