Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points

[Mike Hughes <]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Dave Pratt wrote:

> Unfortunately, I must respond against the proposal as it stands with use of a
> /64 allocation.

If the proposal for the /64 allocation for the IXP mesh is "it" - i.e.
this will be the only address space allocated to an IX, period - then I
find it hard to be in full agreement with this proposal.

The LINX is currently an RIR in it's own right, with a /19 of PA space
delegated to it. This is diced up to provide addresses for the IXP meshes
at LINX (both Unicast and Multicast), for LINX's own public-facing and
member services, and some space is delegated for essential services LINX
hosts (such as nic.uk).

LINX peers with all it's members, and announces this /19 to them - this
means that members have direct, independant connectivity to the LINX
services. We also have a handful of transit ISPs (a small subset of
members, but over independant media) to fill in the gaps, and make sure
we're still online if there is an exchange problem.

If v6 addresses for an IXP's member services have to be delegated from an
upstream provider, this makes the exchange dependant on that provider. If
that provider has problems, or ceases trading, that could have serious
impacts on the business continuity of the exchange, for it's
member/participant community, and possibly other members of the RIPE
community.

Please don't say IPv6 address-based multihoming to me. It's not ready
for primetime IMHO.

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.

Comments?

Mike
-- 
Mike Hughes	Network Architect	London Internet Exchange
mike@localhost	http://www.linx.net/	
     "Only one thing in life is certain: init is Process #1"