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

[Keith Mitchell <]

I don't see any huge conflict between what Randy and Dave are arguing here:

Dave Pratt wrote:

> ->an ix has a perfectly normal way to get infrastructure space now.  the
> ->exchanges you mention have such (v4) space now.  i am not aware of anyone
> ->suggesting to remove those policies.

> This is not true and/or irrelevant, at least in Europe. We are also talking
> about non-peering-mesh infrastructure.

So long as the same policies for "PI" IPv6 space remain open to IXPs
to use for their non-peering-mesh requirements in the same way some
use their own LIR IPv4 space, then I am satisfied the proposed policy
is a reasonable approach. Since our multi-IXP plans mean we will
need to apply for our own sub-TLA in due course, that's what we'll
do (and giving IXPs who meet the existing criteria is not going to
break the bank anyway, as there are maybe two orders of magnitude
less IXPs than ISPs).

But we can only do this if we have some way of achieving the criteria
for this, and that requires ISP-neutral IPv6 space for our peering
mesh so we do the peerings needed to meet these criteria. And that is
the hurdle we have been struggling to overcome for about 8 months now:

> ->what we're trying to do here is to let those ixs who are now throwing up
> ->v6 peering meshes get the address space for those meshes.  we are not

> In order to presently get IPv6 TLA space during the bootstrap phase, an
> applicant must meet RIPE-196's 4.2.2c or 4.2.2d (40 customers/6 months Mbone)
> criteria which presently are not met by IXPs.
> This is I believe why IXPs applications have been rejected/frozen.

Correct. And the proposal put forward by the RIPE NCC a couple of weeks ago
solves this. It IMHO has the dual merits of not solving any other problems, and
not creating any other problems, as the limited scope does not generate
exceptional precedents that can be exploited by non-IXPs wanting special allocations.

> After the bootstrap phase things might get worst, since according to 4.2.1a
> ALL applicants must have 3 IPv6 peerings - which is practically impossible as
> they have not yet got the addresses with which to peer ( chicken and egg :-)

> ***The purpose of this discussion is to fix this and loosen up the allocation
>    policy for ISPs. We need a quick perhaps temporary policy to fix this now.

So please can we go with the existing proposals, which provide a way around
this, ASAP, so we have as much time as possible to prepare for the end of the
bootstrap phase.

> it might save work for the RIPE NCC if the IXPs were to receive
> a standard sub-TLA.

Not really, as the RIPE NCC have already done most of this work, on the basis
of several months' of the silent appearance of consensus from previous discussion
of this issue. I have not yet seen anyone in this most recent discussion raise any
major reasons not to go with the proposal as it stands that have not been addressed in
previous incantations of the debate.

We do have a need for this address space for our business now, and my patience
is getting pretty stretched. Please can we proceed with at least interim
allocations under the proposed policy now.

Frustrated of Pimlico,

Keith Mitchell
CTO, XchangePoint
http://www.xchangepoint.net/contact/keith/