Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:11:08 +0200
At 07:19 PM 9/3/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
>> What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well
>> as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this
>> alongside the existing proposal we have on the table.
> I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its
> independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or
> whatever)
s/ixp/small isp/
i.e. the small isps want to appear independed from their upstream(s).
the discussion over this has been going on nigh a decade. so what makes
an ixp's business so special they warrant special treatment?
I believe there is a difference,
An IXP is a facilitating infrastructure delivering services to all
ISPs connected or to be connected. Linkage in any way to one or
more of its members might harm the neutrality of the exchange towards
its other members.
For AMS-IX:
> AMS-IX is a non-profit, neutral and independent association, meaning
> that it has no bias as to who connects
For LINX
> A neutral, not-for-profit partnership between Internet Service Providers
> globally, LINX provides a physical interconnection for its members to
> exchange Internet traffic through co-operative peering agreements
I believe that in both cases "neutral" and "no bias to.." will be harmed
if IXP address space (in any way, for the exchange infrastructure as
well as for the services infrastructure like web server, e-mail etc) is
related to a limited set of its customers.
- Henk
