Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:23:30 +0200
>Subj: Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points
I think there are still quite a few aspects which require forming a
consensus, finding a definition or a solution.
First of all, talking directly to the set of IXs effectively bypasses
the LIR to NCC channel. so, tjis should be defined in the proposal. I
can imageing that the IX should either become an Enterprise Registry or
work with one of the existing LIRs.
=Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:51:56 +0200
=From: Gert Doering gert@localhost
=To: Mirjam Kuehne mir@localhost
=
=Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points
=
=Hi,
=
=On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
=> An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows:
=>
=> 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the
=> same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome
=> to join.
=
=I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure"
=- an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an
=ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN". Policy
=should not be tied to special implementation techniques.
From a technical point of view, I fully support your suggestion.
From an administrative point of view, I'd re-iterate that nobody is
going to be able to define an IX, much like we agreed eventually that we
would never succeed in defining an ISP.
=Besides this, I like the proposal.
=
=As discussed with a few people after the WG, it *does* pose the risk of
=handing out "lots and lots" of /48s and /64s to people claiming to be
=an exchange point. (It's not that hard to get three ASes together
=over "some" medium).
Talking to folks at one IX (close by :-) and listening to suggestions as
to why this approach is useful, I am having problems with the assumption
that any such IX would remain confined to a *single* subnet.
Also, in keeping with the IAB/IESG recommendation I would propose to
simply ask the applicant whether they really intend to run *one* layer-2
subnet (and then assign a /64).
(Examples: multicast test-beds, VLANs, host not allowed on DMZs,...)
Otherwise assign a /48 - without asking questions about "relations"
between IXs.
>On the other hand: if we reserve a /35 for that, we have 2^13 /48's
>to hand out to "would-be IXes". So the danger of address wastage
>is not too big.
>
>The danger of routing deaggregation *is*...
What is going to happen here is the creation of a TWD/PI environment.
And I do not claim that this is bad i itself, btw.
Just face the fact up front.
>So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this
>space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that
>it will never be routeable world-wide. This should stop people wanting
>to use such space for something different than an exchange point from
>applying for it.
Why do we expect the v6-world to be different from the v4-world, in the
sense that it is the ISPs and the folks dealing with the routing layer
who decide about acceptiong routes, and *not* the address registries?
>Gert Doering
> -- NetMaster
>--
>SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Wilfried.
PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes?
_________________________________:_____________________________________
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@localhost
UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
