<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 8 Feb 2023, at 17:35, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;">If I recall correctly, the original motivation of the IXP policy was to allow IXP to get space, even if they did not otherwise qualify to become an LIR. This was so that they could maintain independence from LIR peering at the IXP.</span></div></blockquote></div><br><div>As the chair of the EIX-WG at the time which generated the policy, rather than AP, the rationale was about ensuring that there would be space for IXP fabric as v4 ran out. </div><div><br></div><div>That was the driver, not the inability of IXPs to afford LIR membership etc. Only IPv4 run out. </div><div><br></div><div>FWIW I do not support this policy as written and expecting starter IXPs to go to the open market is not the kind of policy that is my understanding of the RIPE way. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>f</div></body></html>