Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:34:25 +0100
On 04-03-2003 0:00AM, "Lars Erik Gullerud" lerik@localhost wrote:
[...]
>> The issues remains the IPv6 space for services. Yes, I know that this has
>> been "discussed" before. However it seems that the discussion has not ended.
>
> I would imagine an IXP should have plenty of operators close at hand to
> choose from when it comes to buying upstream connectivity and getting PA
> space to run said services in... :)
>
Depends very much. The larger exchanges might have plenty of choice. Smaller
ones do not have any choice at all.
When there is is choice. An IXP will faces a difficult dilemma. Which member
will get the contract? Here is where the much misunderstood neutrality comes
in place. This demanded neutrally differs IXPs from normal enterprises.
Neutrally for an enterprise means that it can make it's decisions based on
its *own* interests (within certain limits).
An neutral IXP is typically owned by it's members. On top of the the normal
criteria an IXP has to keep the interest of *all* its members in mind. Since
most members are also each others competitors this is not always a simple
thing to do. Especially when it comes to purchasing services offered by the
very same competing members.
> The issues of how they allocate whatever membership fees they charge
> their members to pay for said upstream are between the IXP and it's
> members, they are a commercial entity after all (well, mostly). I'm sure
> quite a few of them will be able to make suitable arrangments with their
> connected members too.
>
On the contrary. The most successful ISPs are not for profit. To be
successful as IXP, one needs to keep a certain distance from all members and
treat them all equally.
By buying upstream from one member the interest of other, competing members
might be harmed implicitly. Do not underestimate the impact that might have.
> If they want multihoming - well, then they are in the same boat as a lot
> of other enterprises out there, that problem as we all know hasn't been
> solved yet. But I don't see what makes an IXP any different from any
> other commercial operation seeking to get multihomed, that gives them
> any right to "special treatment" in that regard.
With multihoming the IXP could get upstream from a number members and keep
its neutrality that way. IMHO that is the way to go. Easy renumbering might
help a bit too.
However both multihoming and easy renumbering are still far away. Therefore
I do understand those who do not want to wait for that and prefer an
exception for critical infrastructure.
Arien
