IPv6 for IXPs

[Mirjam Kuehne <]

Dear all,

After the active discussion regarding IPv6 address for Internet
Exchange Points (IXPs), we now need to come to a conclusion. I have
reviewed the discussion again and will try to summarise it (quite a
challenge :-). Many issues were raised, but so far no clear consensus
was reached.

Please bare with me if I have not included all opinions and comments
or if some submissions are not summarised accurately.

However, I hope that this summary will spark some further discussions
and hopefully a conslusion at the end.

I cc the eix-wg mailing list here and would like to explicitely
encourage IXP operators to actively participate in this discussion.

Kind Regards,

Mirjam Kuehne
RIPE NCC
----------

The following questions were raised during the discussion:

1. Is a special policy needed for IXPS (and following from this
   possibly also for other 'special purposes'?
2. What is the intended use of the addresses at the IXPs?
3. How is an IXP defined?
4. What size should be assigned?


1. special policy needed?
-------------------------

Many participants believed that a policy for IXPs is needed, because
they usually do not have an upstream provider and also do not want to
use addresses from one of their members (for political rather than
technical reasons).

Some participants however felt that no special policy is needed for
IXPs. They should either be treated as an end-user network or should
be able to get a 'normal' (currently a /35) IPv6 allocation from the
RIRs.


2. intended use of the addresses?
----------------------------------

Special policy would only be needed for addresses needed for the
Exchange Point medium itself (usually a layer-2 network). Addresses
needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the
members) should be assigned by upstream ISPs.

It was also discussed if the addresses should actually be
announced. It was felt that this is not really necessary, but that
some IXPs do it anyway. There was no conclusion if this should be part
of the policy (e.g.  the micro-allocation policy implemented in the
ARIN region does require that the prefix is not announced).

One option would be to warn the IXP that these addresses are likely
not to be globally routable.


3. definition of an IXP
-----------------------

It was generally felt that it is difficult to define an IXP, but that
the following refined definition could be used as a starting point:


Three or more ASes and thee or more separate entities attached to a
LAN (a common layer 2 infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and
more are welcome to join.


4. assignment size?
-------------------

Some participants felt that a /64 would be appropriate if the IXP
would consist of only one subnet. In all other cases a /48 should be
assigned (this would be consistent with the IESG/IAB recommendation).

Others felt that the address size should not be pre-defined, but
should be based on need and discussed on a case-by-case basis between
the requestor and the RIR.


5. Other issues raised
----------------------

Requests should only be sent by established LIRs or via an existing
LIR.

Reverse delegation would have to be done by the RIR (requested also
via an existing LIR)