Re: Exchange Points and LIRs

[leo vegoda <]

Hi Carlos,

Carlos Friacas cfriacas@localhost wrote:

[...]

> AND: IXPs fall in the border of the previous two:
>  a) An IXP in London/Amsterdam/Frankfurt/... is globally-critical
>  b) An IXP in Lisbon/Warsaw/Bucharest/... is community-critical
>
> The curious thing is b) are also undoubtably IXPs, but it is more
> difficult for them, being in small cities to get a /48 from the IXPs'
> block (take another look at the rules!)
Looking at the policy[0] I see that to be defined as an IXP you must 
have "... a minimum of three ISPs connected and there must be a clear 
and open policy for others to join." The policy then says that a /48 
will be assigned unless the requester "is confident that it will never 
need more than a single network".

The result of this is that we've assigned 29 /48s[1]. No one has ever 
told us that they are confident that a /64 will suffice. I don't think 
that the policy actually discriminates against IXPs in small cities.

I concede that the wording in the policy could be clearer. We'd be happy 
to update the text of the policy if needed. I'd suggest that any changes 
to the policy text (or content for that matter) should be discussed on 
the address-policy-wg@localhost list.

Regards,

--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager

[0] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policy-ixp.html
[1] http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6allocs.html