Thanks. The proposal retains the potential of renumbering, lessens the value of the prefix as contrasted to fees due to less usability, creates globally un-usable fragments and IMHO isn’t needed in North America. I’m skeptical that we should heavily weight PeeringDB data as part of the ARIN policy process. PDB isn’t a regulator nor does it have an open policy process like ARIN’s which impacts what’s in it and who can participate in that policy making. PDB is a product.
Voluntary or not, doesn’t this approach result in wasted space as well re: globally isolated fragments? Conservation is part of our mandate and ensuring the opportunity, even while we don’t guarantee it, for global routing falls in line with that. Sparse allocation of the 4.4 pool will almost ensure that future expansion requires a renumbering and accelerated use of the pool due to boundary needs. Without thinking a lot about it operationally, it sounds messy. The current requirements of three or more parties participating seems well enough for a /24 from 4.4. If there were to be a lengthening, that should be retained. We changed it from two to three participants to ensure those who could operate via PNI did and we didn’t waste space supporting a “possible” IXP. Three participants is reasonable for an IXP use case without a prediction of 24 month utilization. These are (mostly) good of the Internet and not commercial efforts. Policy may win some, but will also lose some as well. The losers will be big. Circular argument re: the policy losses which then require renumbering….and the globally less usable fragments also seem to parse back into circular erosion as well. Hope that helps, and not supporting 2023-2. -M< From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf of Reese, Gus <gre...@cogentco.com> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:33 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs Greetings, The ARIN AC is hearing some initial opposition on the draft policy but we are also sensing that some changes to the policy might change some minds. There is a potential scenario in which a large number of IXPs will arise based on relatively recent news item targeting underserved markets. The study cited in the original email to the PPML shows that more than 2 out of 3 IXPs globally have fewer than 32 members registered, for which a /26 is more than sufficient. We want to gauge whether the community might support some combination of the following options to make this draft more balanced: a. Permit larger assignment if the organization demonstrates an expected utilization of 50% of the requested block within 24 months. (similar to transfer requirements) b. Permit a range of sizes (from as low as possibly /27 up to /24) upon request, with no documentation needed. We welcome the opinions of all community members. Regards, Gus -- Gus Reese ARIN Advisory Council gre...@cogentco.com From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Andrew Dul Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 11:51 AM To: Kevin Blumberg <kev...@thewire.ca>; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs In 4.4 it does say “ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.” Is that information available with the IXP name etc? I believe this is the list that ARIN is currently publishing. https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/microallocations/#micro-allocations-for-exchange-points I was going to say it probably would be helpful if there was a machine readable format for this...but looks like someone already thought of that... https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2019/2019-24/ Andrew On 6/29/2023 8:42 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote: I don’t support this policy. I’ll echo what other operators have said, renumbering is non-trivial at an IXP. Is ARIN even able to provide reverse DNS delegation for a /26 at this point? The CI pool is in my mind working as intended, the drawn down from the pool as shown earlier has been reasonable. If the definition of who is an IXP for the purposes of getting space, that is an entirely different proposal and problem statement. In 4.4 it does say “ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.” Is that information available with the IXP name etc? Thanks, Kevin Blumberg From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net><mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Matt Peterson Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 4:19 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs 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<http://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. --Matt On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN <i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote: On 15 June 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-320: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs” as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_2 _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
